[thecombjelly]

America has a capitalism problem. What the article fails to address is that the root cause is really capitalism. Under capitalism wealth and power always concentrates, which in the case of businesses, that eventually means bad monopolies. Under a representative democracy that also means politics will always be corrupted because those with money and power will always be benefited by controlling politics, and they have the money and power to do so (who owns the news media? who can afford to buy off politicians, whether they start corrupt or not?). While the power of monopolies ebbs and flows as those without capital get angrier, the monopolies will always come back because that's what capitalism does.

Monopolies are not inherently bad. It's entirely possible to have a monopoly and have a great thing that everyone likes and is happy with and which keeps innovating. But under capitalism the primary incentive is the accumulation of capital which rarely lines up with creating something great long term.

[zerebubuth]

> Under capitalism wealth and power always concentrates

Not always. The share of wealth owned by the top 10% in the USA fell between 1932 and 1952, and again between 1962 and 1985 [1].

[1] http://gabriel-zucman.eu/files/SaezZucman2014.pdf#page56

[thecombjelly]

Yes, it fluctuates depending on numerous factors, including how unhappy those without capital get about the unequal distribution of capital. You see this when monopolies start getting broken up and some wealth gets passed back down. But inevitably the capital gets concentrated again because that's how capitalism works. And even when some of the wealth gets passed back down the people in power generally stay in power.

[ianai]

I can think of at least one way to diminish companies power over legislatures. Pay representatives enough that they’re indifferent to corrupt forces. It’s not like there an expectation for representives to be broke.

[beart]

Define "enough".

I don't think this solution really works. For some folks, nothing is ever enough. Then you also need to consider that it is less about money for some and more about friends and power. Maybe I don't do what corporations ask because they are going to pay my campaign. Maybe I do it because it makes me feel like a big man being the person they all come to for favors. Maybe I do it to gain acceptance into an aristocracy. I don't know how you can compete against that on a government salary, no matter how big.

Donald Trump is supposedly worth $3.5 billion. Do you think paying him more money would change the way he governs? I only use him as an example because he is the richest US politician, but there aren't too many poor ones at the federal level.

I guess I just don't see how you could ever pay a politician enough to be "indifferent to corrupt forces".

[ianai]

I’m dismissing Trump as an example as he’s a clear outlier.

How much do you figure you would have to pay Bill Gates to babysit? Unless you’re in his immediate circle that’s going to cost quite a lot of money. People react to incentives in relation to their current wealth. A chartered flight or sweatheart real estate deal will mean a lot less to someone making plenty for their job of representing the people. They’ll also be much more sensitive to scandals.

[thecombjelly]

At that point it seems you would have just promoted politicians in to the capital class without the middle-person, but again they now represent the capital class and all their non-politician capital class buddies at the cocktail parties, instead of representing those without much capital.

[ianai]

They’re already there. And in order to obtain and maintain that status they chose special interests over constituent needs. Lobbyists pay better than the people.