Capital in the Twenty-First Century

[Iormlund]

The US Supreme Court recently determined that this was how democracy (in America at least) was supposed to work.

All along, we thought that democracy was about elected officials being responsive to the desires of the people who elected them...but it turns out that it is actually that they are supposed to be responsive to the desires of the people who fund them.

When have you ever changed your vote because of political advertising?  When has someone you know changed their vote because of political advertising?

I doubt many people in Languish change votes because of ads. Many of us will be too used to debate to fall for the sound-bite.

However, the population at large rarely follows politics with such scrutiny.

[celedhring]

I also don't think it's about changing peoples' votes as much as to get independents or people that would otherwise stay at home to vote for you.

Also in the US funding plays a huge part in primaries, where you will have a bunch of "natural" voters that are not pledged to a candidate.

[Berkut]

I also don't think it's about changing peoples' votes as much as to get independents or people that would otherwise stay at home to vote for you.

Also in the US funding plays a huge part in primaries, where you will have a bunch of "natural" voters that are not pledged to a candidate.

The biggest issue isn't necesariLY about advertising, it is about the incredible expense of funding a campain, of which advertising is just one part.

So politicians need money, a lot of money, to stay in power. They have to get it from someone. It is rather obvious that those who give it to them expect something in return. The more it costs, the more it becomes solely the place of the ultra-rich to fund, and the less and less relevance the not ultra rich will have.

Sure, we all get to vote...amongst a set of candidates who have all gotten to the point where we get to cast a vote for or against them, by being funded my the mega-rich.

So yippeee! You get to choose between various candidates, all of which are beholden to those who put them there...and that isn't the people who voted for them.

So it is obvious that reform of the way in which campaigns are financed is desperately needed. That is hard, since the people who must pass the laws to reform it are the same people who benefit from the corrupt system to begin with.

But now, we have the USSC saying that even if you can manage to get reform legislation passed, they will knock it all down, because this process by which the ultra wealthy buy politicians and those politicians then serve their interests instead of the interests of the voters....is the system working as designed.

I guess I should not say the USSC, since it is actually just 5 of them, including the Chief Justice. I used to think Roberts wasn't so bad, but his decision recently has firmly planted him in the "maybe one of the worst justices of all time" camp.

[Duque de Bragança]

For a book about inequality the motherfucker is pretty expensive.  Maybe when I'm working again I'll buy it.

Or loan it from a library?

[MadImmortalMan]

For a book about inequality the motherfucker is pretty expensive.  Maybe when I'm working again I'll buy it.

Or loan it from a library?

I tried that recently. Would have been cheaper to just buy the books.   

[mongers]

I also don't think it's about changing peoples' votes as much as to get independents or people that would otherwise stay at home to vote for you.

Also in the US funding plays a huge part in primaries, where you will have a bunch of "natural" voters that are not pledged to a candidate.

The biggest issue isn't necesariLY about advertising, it is about the incredible expense of funding a campain, of which advertising is just one part.

So politicians need money, a lot of money, to stay in power. They have to get it from someone. It is rather obvious that those who give it to them expect something in return. The more it costs, the more it becomes solely the place of the ultra-rich to fund, and the less and less relevance the not ultra rich will have.

Sure, we all get to vote...amongst a set of candidates who have all gotten to the point where we get to cast a vote for or against them, by being funded my the mega-rich.

So yippeee! You get to choose between various candidates, all of which are beholden to those who put them there...and that isn't the people who voted for them.

So it is obvious that reform of the way in which campaigns are financed is desperately needed. That is hard, since the people who must pass the laws to reform it are the same people who benefit from the corrupt system to begin with.

But now, we have the USSC saying that even if you can manage to get reform legislation passed, they will knock it all down, because this process by which the ultra wealthy buy politicians and those politicians then serve their interests instead of the interests of the voters....is the system working as designed.

I guess I should not say the USSC, since it is actually just 5 of them, including the Chief Justice. I used to think Roberts wasn't so bad, but his decision recently has firmly planted him in the "maybe one of the worst justices of all time" camp.

Yes, it's rather a sorry state of affairs.

[Valmy]

But now, we have the USSC saying that even if you can manage to get reform legislation passed, they will knock it all down, because this process by which the ultra wealthy buy politicians and those politicians then serve their interests instead of the interests of the voters....is the system working as designed.

The most infamous phrase in a SC decision in a long time.  Just breathtaking.

[Norgy]

I also don't think it's about changing peoples' votes as much as to get independents or people that would otherwise stay at home to vote for you.

Also in the US funding plays a huge part in primaries, where you will have a bunch of "natural" voters that are not pledged to a candidate.

The biggest issue isn't necesariLY about advertising, it is about the incredible expense of funding a campain, of which advertising is just one part.

So politicians need money, a lot of money, to stay in power. They have to get it from someone. It is rather obvious that those who give it to them expect something in return. The more it costs, the more it becomes solely the place of the ultra-rich to fund, and the less and less relevance the not ultra rich will have.

Sure, we all get to vote...amongst a set of candidates who have all gotten to the point where we get to cast a vote for or against them, by being funded my the mega-rich.

So yippeee! You get to choose between various candidates, all of which are beholden to those who put them there...and that isn't the people who voted for them.

So it is obvious that reform of the way in which campaigns are financed is desperately needed. That is hard, since the people who must pass the laws to reform it are the same people who benefit from the corrupt system to begin with.

But now, we have the USSC saying that even if you can manage to get reform legislation passed, they will knock it all down, because this process by which the ultra wealthy buy politicians and those politicians then serve their interests instead of the interests of the voters....is the system working as designed.

I guess I should not say the USSC, since it is actually just 5 of them, including the Chief Justice. I used to think Roberts wasn't so bad, but his decision recently has firmly planted him in the "maybe one of the worst justices of all time" camp.

Eventually, all faith in the system of governance will be eroded. The sums forked out on campaigns are just stunningly high. And it's not like other countries aren't following suit.

[The Minsky Moment]

I'm a little less than a quarter of the way through - not enough to give a view.

However, I did note that Piketty uses the word "appropriation" in a limited sense to refer to the acquisition and exploitation of natural resources like land or precious minerals, and uses "accumulation" to refer to the broader ways in which owners of capital generate returns.  The one exception - (i had to peek ahead for this) is the passage quoted in the Martin Wolf FT piece.  It would be interesting to see the original French phrasing to check whether this is a translation issue but in any case that one line does not appear to be generally representative of the tone.

[Oexmelin]

Goldhammer is an amazing translator. I doubt he introduced such distortion.

[Admiral Yi]

However, I did note that Piketty uses the word "appropriation" in a limited sense to refer to the acquisition and exploitation of natural resources like land or precious minerals

I don't see why this should get a pass.

[Queequeg]

Goldhammer is an amazing translator. I doubt he introduced such distortion.

Oex! 

[The Minsky Moment]

However, I did note that Piketty uses the word "appropriation" in a limited sense to refer to the acquisition and exploitation of natural resources like land or precious minerals

I don't see why this should get a pass.

I wasn't aware that a pass was required.

[Jacob]

When have you ever changed your vote because of political advertising?  When has someone you know changed their vote because of political advertising?

Is your argument that campaign funding does not affect electoral outcomes?

[Admiral Yi]

I wasn't aware that a pass was required.

It's not.   I was under the impression you were  granting one.  If you weren't, there's no issue.