![]() For example, it might seem to be “catering to the interests of the working class” to enact import quotas on foreign goods, because they protect the jobs of those who produce the corresponding domestic goods. Other times it means catering to what they see as the interests of the poor.īut politicians are notorious for attaining results contrary to their stated goals. Sometimes that means catering to what they see as the interests of the rich. Even if we wanted to reduce the citizenry to convenient, polarized categories like “rich” and “poor,” the politicians would be a distinct third class. More to the point, politicians are still democratically elected, and fears about campaign finance notwithstanding, it remains the case that a rich person has as many votes as a poor person. For one thing, many of our richest citizens are left-leaning. Rockefeller’s day, there is simply no evidence that we are governed by a cabal of the wealthiest few. ![]() ![]() Even if it were true that income inequalities are more pronounced now than in John D. If it wasn’t a plutocracy during the hated (by Progressives) Gilded Age, it isn’t now. Even if we grant the assumption that income inequalities are increasing, that wouldn’t make our society a plutocracy. Plutocracy means government by the wealthy. The very title of his column, “Plutocracy and Politics,” is misleading. He needn’t worry himself (more important, he needn’t worry his readers), since his argument depends on misleading arguments about wealth disparities and philosophical confusion about American democracy. In a New York Times op-ed (June 14, 2002), columnist Paul Krugman lamented the increasing inequality between rich and poor, and expressed concern that this will lead to an erosion of democracy. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |