If you are searching for an undemocratic election in the world, you don’t have to go to a third-world-nation country in Africa or to a theocratic State in Middle East such as the apocalyptic Mullahs’ regime in Iran to find one. You just need to look into the process of the U.S. presidential election. The election is structured through pledged delegates that outwardly delivers based on the grassroots votes, but next to it there is Super-Pacs-Super-Delegates system that literally has the power to shape the election outcome for the benefit of the top 1% wealthy. In plain English, Super Pacs work as lobby mediators between the wealthy that own and control the corporations and the party Super Delegates whose unbound votes determines the fate of the candidates. Strictly speaking, the political election is run by the rich investors and corporate owners, they are the ones who buy the votes and accordingly appoint the political authorities from reps and senators to governors and presidents. Based on 2015 American Values Survey, 64% Americans believe their vote does not matter because of the influence that wealthy individuals and big corporations have on the electoral process.
Joseph E. Stiglitz, a contributor to Vanity Fair writes “Virtually all U.S. Senators, and most of the representatives in the House, are members of the top 1 percent when they arrive, are kept in office by money from the top 1 percent, and know that if they serve the top 1 percent well they will be rewarded by the top 1 percent when they leave office. By and large, the key executive-branch policymakers on trade and economic policy also come from the top 1 percent. When pharmaceutical companies receive a trillion-dollar gift — through legislation prohibiting the government, the largest buyer of drugs, from bargaining over price — it should not come as cause for wonder. It should not make jaws drop that a tax bill cannot emerge from Congress unless big tax cuts are put in place for the wealthy. Given the power of the top 1 percent, this is the way you would expect the system to work.” Read more…
The capitalist system is in crisis and this crisis is not going to go away any time soon. This is a system in which a handful of unelected bankers, capitalists, speculators and thieves are the ones taking decisions affecting the livelihoods and jobs of hundreds of millions, who are left having no say in the matter. People are asking for regulating Capitalism since they believe the capitals of 1% rich are accumulated upon the poverty burden of the 99% poor. Capitalism needs regulation, otherwise it turn the society into a jungle of inhumanity, in which greed and corruption would be the energy converter for the people to compete wickedly against each other to win big and bigger with no respect for morality and humanity . We are witnessing this wickedness characteristic of Capitalism in every aspect of life in our everyday society.
Regulation on Capitalism should provide filtration through each step of the way for the capitalist in accumulating his wealth. The function of this filter is to purify Capitalism from corruption and greed, which may have inter-dimensional roots in economics, politics, etc. Here I just suffice to give an example in politics dimension. A rich person due to his power and money would be able to influence the congressmen, senators, and public voting to have the policies and measures changed to his benefits. Thus the system becomes a main source of protection and promotion of rich people’s assets and the quality of their lives while the concern about the standards of living for majority poor is left behind. The rich get richer and poor get poorer and the gap between these two sectors of societies become wider every day. It reminds me of a jungle of animals, the stronger animal gets better food, and the weak animals remain hungry. The job of such filter on Capitalism, which we call regulation, would be to remove the system deficiencies, in this case to disconnect any such fraudulent advantage for the rich person and force the system to treat him the same as an ordinary person who belongs to 99% poor. Similarly in the process of presidential election, a candidate who is supported financially by the rich people, i.e., special interest groups, simply because of using broader resources at his exposure gets a better chance of getting elected and go to White House, so here again the necessity of using the imposition of a similar regulation seems inevitable.
I am sure the greedy capitalist people do not like what I just wrote, as Gandhi observed: “There is enough to meet everyone’s need, but not enough to meet everyone’s greed”. Hencethe task of regulating policies beyond imposing the amended policies and regulations would further involves educating people to change from being a self-interest person toward being a human who care for well-beings of other people as well. We haven’t come to this world to just compete against each other on accumulating wealth for ourselves and at the end die with no purpose other than leaving a pile-up fortune behind us. We are here to be a better person for ourselves and others, to care about our fellow human, to provide opportunities for others, to educate the ignorant people how to be useful in their lives, to think and provide the pursuit of happiness for everybody. It is then and only then that life would be better, richer, fuller and more meaningful for everyone. [DID]
A journalist who has published a new work focused on American income inequality believes that the U.S. had better embrace wealth redistribution or prepare for a revolution that will be “the bloodiest thing the world has even seen.”
Pulitzer-prize winning journalist David Cay Johnston put together “Divided: The Perils of Our Growing Income Inequality” to increase focus on income inequality, a favorite Democrat talking point.
The collection of essays, speeches and excerpts is described by the liberal blog Salon as a “kind of inequality reader.” In a lengthy interview with the blog, Johnston lends insight to the thinking behind the left’s championing of forced wealth redistribution.
Because the 99 percent might do something more intense than wrecking parks, getting pepper sprayed and playing bongos next time:
We will either, through peaceful, rational means, go back to a system that does not take from the many to give to the few in all these subtle ways, or we will end up like 18th century France. And if we end up in that awful condition, it will be the bloodiest thing the world has even seen. Read more…