Survival__ Structuring Prosperity for Yourself and the Nation - Charles George Smith [78]
The analog to this is monopoly.
If one enterprise (or a handful in collusion) gains near-total control of a market, then the profits to be gained are immensely greater than those earned in a highly competitive market. This is why Marx posited that the drive to monopoly is inherent to capitalism. And of course a monopoly on information also generates far more handsome profits than transparency. This is why we find both government and its hidden masters, the Plutocracy, are constantly seeking to bury the truth at every turn, and why each fights transparency so fiercely.
To expect the State not to seek expansion as its self-interest, to expect wealthy citizens not to seek to influence the State to align policy with their own interests, to expect capitalism not to trend to monopoly, to expect markets not to shun transparency in favor of obfuscation and secrecy--these are all akin to expecting gravity to cease pulling us to earth. These are what we might call ontological forces, forces which are built into the very nature of the state, capitalism, markets and thus into human nature itself.
This is why we have to be careful not to fall for the seductive artifice of ideology as we choose responses to the multiple challenges ahead. Neither the market nor the State is an answer; each is as much a part of the problem as it is a part of the solution.
Political Disunity Squeezes the Middle Class
Political disunity ends up crushing the middle class's wealth and political influence.
In The Fall of the Roman Empire, author Michael Grant identified political disunity as one the one key causes of the fall of the Western Roman Empire (Rome).
One engine of such disunity and squabbling, of course, is a deep-denial complacency: if a large percentage of the ruling class/citizenry sees nothing wrong, or counts on feeble "reforms" to resolve mounting global challenges, then they will hobble those seeking systemic, sweeping changes required to survive the challenges.
Another key reason for this crippling disunity is the resistance of the Plutocracy/underclass recipients to any change in the status quo.
It may strike some as ironic that the two ends of the political spectrum are united in one goal: fiercely resisting any shifting of largesse/benefits. At the top, the "fortunate 400" in Roman society paid less and less tax as the crises mounted, while 300,000 fortunates at the bottom rung continued to draw free bread and 170 days of free public entertainment in Rome even as the Empire imploded.
We see plentiful evidence of both trends around us. The number of recent political appointees who felt paying taxes was for plebeians is not just embarrassing, it's indicative of a broad cultural trend; and it seems many of the riots we read about in western Europe stem from proposed cuts in what are essentially "bread and circuses" welfare benefits which the Empire can no longer afford to shower on its unproductive (non-tax paying) residents.
As the plutocracy contributes less and less to the finances of a heavily burdened central government, wealth disparity rises.
This trend has been firmly in place for years. As documented by The Wall Street Journal and other sources, tax rates for the top 1% have been tumbling for years.
As in fast-declining Rome, the plutocracy is pleased to wield its wealth and influence to insure it pays 17% tax rate (much, much less when tax-free municipal bonds are counted as income) while the productive elements of the economy are saddled with 40%-50% tax burdens.
Also as in headed-to-oblivion Rome, the plutocracy no longer contributes its sons and daughters to military service; that is left to the poor.
Lastly, rigid ideological camps are creating disunity as the middle (and the middle class) are eroded.
Thus we have a Congress which united under pressure to give $700 billion in borrowed money to the banks under a Republican