THIS is actually how democracy dies (sorry Padme')

[food4thought]

Heard it before, but considering where we've gone in the last couple years, I thought it was worth revisiting and sharing.

"In 1787, while our first 13 states adopted their new constitution, Alexander Tyler who was a Scottish History Professor at the University of Edinburgh, said this about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2000 years earlier:

“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse doe to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.”"

Taken from this blog, which I know absolutely nothing about (just the one that I found that had the quote I was remembering, and I also like the way they modernized the wording to be more understandable): A Democracy Will Only Last Until… – Lee's Summit Conservative (lsconservative.com)

So is this finally happening in America? Will "Modern Monetary Policy" be able to prevent it, or be the catalyst that finally brings it about? Thoughts?

 

[timothyu]

No finer words from the elite were ever spoken. Convince the masses the money must remain in the hands of the few. lol At present the top 1% now have more wealth than the 60% comprising the middle class. The 1% became 50% wealthier during the pandemic while businesses and worker floundered. It wasn't that long ago when the tables were reversed and the nation was prosperous. That s what happens when wealth is shared just enough to keep things in balance. However now, there is no balance any more. Of course that is how the scales tip in a democracy except once again the minority gets to rule.

 

[timothyu]

Have a look from a different view

Top 1 Percent in US Now Have More Wealth Than Entire Middle Class Combined

 

[timothyu]

Another question. Why are the American people so anxious to take out a loan from themselves for 3.5 trillion dollars and use everything they own as collateral while someone else gets the interest and the money?

 

[royal priest]

Another question. Why are the American people so anxious to take out a loan from themselves for 3.5 trillion dollars and use everything they own as collateral while someone else gets the interest?

We've been duped by the rising globalist totalitarian state. Larry Fink spoke and we listened. “An unprecedented response is needed when monetary policy is exhausted and fiscal policy alone is not enough. That response will likely involve ‘going direct’”: “finding ways to get central bank money directly in the hands of public and private sector spenders”
Aye-aye captain!

 

[Yttrium]

I used to worry about balancing the budget, and that was my number one issue when voting. Things were finally starting to click by the end of Clinton's presidency. Then it all fell apart, and I gave up. I don't expect our debt to come crashing down on our heads until after I die, so I don't care any more.

 

[timothyu]

Back to the feudal system

 

[TLK Valentine]

Back to the feudal system

As it was always intended to... funny how so many pretended it was anything but inevitable.

 

[hedrick]

We’re in an odd situation. Democrats can probably get social policies passed. They want to raise revenue to do it, but are blocked by Republicans, who won’t even let them step up IRS enforcement. Republicans can probably keep revenues from being raised, but can’t entirely stop social programs. That can lead to hyperinflation, but the best guess is that at the moment it won’t. In the long run, however, this is a bad combination.

Inagree that the continuing rise in inequity is leading to trouble. There are things that can be done structurally to minimize this, but probably not in the current political environment.

 

[CatsRule2020]

It used to that the majority of U.S. citizens recognized that our country came about through the determination of God and verified through the miracles that occurred in the war of 1812. The politicians were kept in check by the voters who held them to the accountability of objective moral standards.
Through the years, the more greedy elites and the determined secularists have been able, through the school systems, to create enough smoke to darken the minds of the populace as to loose hope. Now the very few at the economic top have total control of the Judicial, and most of the Legislatve branches.

It never was about the money in the treasuries of Democracies that caused them to fail. It was the lack of Christian light in the people.

 

[timothyu]

It never was about the money in the treasuries of Democracies that caused them to fail. It was the lack of Christian light in the people.

Luke 16:15, James 1:27, Romans 12:2, James 4:4

 

[food4thought]

No finer words from the elite were ever spoken. Convince the masses the money must remain in the hands of the few. lol At present the top 1% now have more wealth than the 60% comprising the middle class. The 1% became 50% wealthier during the pandemic while businesses and worker floundered. It wasn't that long ago when the tables were reversed and the nation was prosperous. That s what happens when wealth is shared just enough to keep things in balance. However now, there is no balance any more. Of course that is how the scales tip in a democracy except once again the minority gets to rule.

Hi, timothyu! Sorry it took so long to respond, I've been on quite a long hiatus from this site... I see how you could see it in that light, but I have to respond by pointing out that none of the conservatives I know would say they want to keep all the money in the hands of the elite! I certainly don't want that! I would say that simply giving an increasingly large amount of benefits to people capable of contributing to society is not going to end well, and a better way to reduce the wealth gap needs to be found than incentivizing people capable of doing something productive to sit around.

For example, why do benefits get completely shut off when people earn wages that few could live on? Wouldn't it be more helpful to gradually decrease benefits given as people earn more, so they don't end up with LESS resources by working than they get for not working? I don't know about you, but I would be much more comfortable paying a higher tax so capable people could gradually work their way off government assistance than I am paying what I currently am for capable people to be perpetually dependent on government benefits because getting a job would cause them to become homeless!

But I digress... the point I am making is that our government is currently a long way down a path that leads to either debt default or devaluing the dollar into oblivion (possibly both!). If either, or both, of these things happen, a whole host of catastrophic economic and geopolitical consequences will follow, not just for America but for the whole world.

 

[timothyu]

and a better way to reduce the wealth gap needs to be found than incentivizing people capable of doing something productive to sit around.

Simple. Reverse Corporatism.

 

[durangodawood]

...“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse doe to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.”"...

What the point of all the fuss and effort of democracy?

We should just go straight to the inevitable dictatorship, right?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I would say that simply giving an increasingly large amount of benefits to people capable of contributing to society is not going to end well, and a better way to reduce the wealth gap needs to be found than incentivizing people capable of doing something productive to sit around.

Aside from the idea of Universal Basic Income, which is more about addressing the reality of increasing automation and its effect on the job market, I don't see any substantive policies that are being pushed that incentivize people to sit around. There are some poorly-executed policies that do this unintentionally (as you mention below), but that's not how most people want them to work.

For example, why do benefits get completely shut off when people earn wages that few could live on? Wouldn't it be more helpful to gradually decrease benefits given as people earn more, so they don't end up with LESS resources by working than they get for not working? I don't know about you, but I would be much more comfortable paying a higher tax so capable people could gradually work their way off government assistance than I am paying what I currently am for capable people to be perpetually dependent on government benefits because getting a job would cause them to become homeless!

This is how the majority of liberals feel as well. The problem is that the majority of conservatives (or at least the majority of conservative legislators) are strongly opposed to any policy that increases taxes. They're happy to push policies to increase spending on the military or border security though, and the Democrats always manage to get a few social initiatives through, but without any increases in revenue, the debt continues to balloon.

But I digress... the point I am making is that our government is currently a long way down a path that leads to either debt default or devaluing the dollar into oblivion (possibly both!). If either, or both, of these things happen, a whole host of catastrophic economic and geopolitical consequences will follow, not just for America but for the whole world.

What, specifically, do you see as guiding us down that path?

 

[food4thought]

What the point of all the fuss and effort of democracy?

We should just go straight to the inevitable dictatorship, right?

not at all! First, despite all of our flaws, it has been quite successful for over 200 years. Second of all, I was not trying to start a thread critical of democracy, but one that highlights where we are at as a nation, and where we could be headed if significant changes in our government's fiscal policy are not implemented. I think it is extremely important that we as Christians have our eyes open to the realities we live in, so there is value in acknowledging the real dangers we face going forward.

What do you think the consequences would be for Christians in the west should our governments fail? Are we ready SPIRITUALY (corporately and individually) to handle adversity of that level in a faithful and Christ-like way, or are we going to embrace the strategies of the world in fear?

 

[food4thought]

Simple. Reverse Corporatism.

Could you give me a cliff-notes version of what Reverse Corporatism is? Thanks in advance

 

[NxNW]

It used to that the majority of U.S. citizens recognized that our country came about through the determination of God and verified through the miracles that occurred in the war of 1812. The politicians were kept in check by the voters who held them to the accountability of objective moral standards.
Through the years, the more greedy elites and the determined secularists have been able, through the school systems, to create enough smoke to darken the minds of the populace as to loose hope. Now the very few at the economic top have total control of the Judicial, and most of the Legislatve branches.

It never was about the money in the treasuries of Democracies that caused them to fail. It was the lack of Christian light in the people.

This country was not at all founded upon Christian principles.

 

[durangodawood]

not at all! First, despite all of our flaws, it has been quite successful for over 200 years. Second of all, I was not trying to start a thread critical of democracy, but one that highlights where we are at as a nation, and where we could be headed if significant changes in our government's fiscal policy are not implemented. I think it is extremely important that we as Christians have our eyes open to the realities we live in, so there is value in acknowledging the real dangers we face going forward.

What do you think the consequences would be for Christians in the west should our governments fail? Are we ready SPIRITUALY (corporately and individually) to handle adversity of that level in a faithful and Christ-like way, or are we going to embrace the strategies of the world in fear?

But the quote should be dispiriting to anyone who proposes fighting for the preservation of democracy. It speaks of inevitability and of a turning point we reached and passed long ago.

Honestly I dont know why this quote turns up in "conservative" circles unless it speaks to a hidden desire for dictatorship. Dictatorship can be quite seductive. The strong man savior who can wipe the pieces off the board and set up a fresh game.

I'm not a Christian, but clearly Christianity is not a reliable bulwark against dictatorship, especially if the dictator embraces the language of the Bible.

 

[food4thought]

Aside from the idea of Universal Basic Income, which is more about addressing the reality of increasing automation and its effect on the job market, I don't see any substantive policies that are being pushed that incentivize people to sit around. There are some poorly-executed policies that do this unintentionally (as you mention below), but that's not how most people want them to work.


This is how the majority of liberals feel as well. The problem is that the majority of conservatives (or at least the majority of conservative legislators) are strongly opposed to any policy that increases taxes. They're happy to push policies to increase spending on the military or border security though, and the Democrats always manage to get a few social initiatives through, but without any increases in revenue, the debt continues to balloon.

I can relate a bit to both sides. Obviously, technology and third world competition are having an increasingly negative impact on the availability of work. Undocumented workers are also placing downward pressure on wages in some fields, and the loss in tax revenue and cost in social services to huge waves of migrants unable to integrate easily into society is also a problem. On the one hand, increasing corporate taxes without protecting our workers with sensible and targeted tariffs would incentivize outsourcing jobs even more, but that would also make it harder for employers to keep raising wages as prices rise without causing a rapid upward spiral in prices. Placing a cap on compensation might help offset that a bit, but we then risk losing our top executive/technology talent to overseas markets, with the resulting effects of reducing western ability to stay ahead of the curve on innovation, empowering dictatorships like China and Russia to further expand their power and influence over millions more people. Also, trying to tighten our border security without addressing what is going on in Central America and large parts of Mexico is futile, and will create an enormous humanitarian crisis over and above what it already is. As for amnesty, if we give amnesty to current illegal immigrants, that would inevitably lead to an even greater flow of people rushing to our southern border. All the while, as these problems increase in intensity, our leaders argue over which party has the right answers, vying for increased seats to get all they want done instead of admitting that both parties have answers that need to be implemented, and doing all that they want without doing at least part of what the other side wants would just make things worse! And a partisan news media is only driving voters further apart, leading to candidates having to take more and more extreme stances to one side or the other in order to get elected.

What, specifically, do you see as guiding us down that path?

Simply put, we're printing huge amounts of money, borrowing huge amounts of money to fund existing government activities every year, promising more and more benefits to our citizens both now and in the future, and refusing to do anything to pay for it.

As a moderate conservative, the way I see it is really like this: 1) yes, we need to increase our taxes on corporations and high wage earners, but NOT SO WE CAN GIVE OUT EVEN MORE FREE BENEFITS TO PEOPLE FOR DOING NOTHING! It's like giving money to that relative that always needs more help and never changes their behavior that causes them to be broke (both our government and the people who passively expect Uncle Sam to support them)! So, 2) before raising taxes, we need to reign in spending enough to have a balanced budget with the massive amounts of money we already give our government. Then we can start raising taxes, NOT TO INCREASE OUR BUDGET, BUT TO PAY DOWN OUR EXISTING DEBT! And 3) stop printing new money at a pace that literally guarantees that inflation will wipe out any gains in wages I get from my employer over then next ten years, as well as causing any increase in minimum wage to send inflation into overdrive... this is why the stock market is even a thing, and most likely also why federal minimum wage hasn't budged for 25 years! If my cash wasn't losing value at a high rate of speed, I wouldn't need to depend upon stock appreciation to retire before I'm 90! And if prices weren't climbing already, our economy could handle a gradual, consistent raise in wages. And for every % point of inflation, by the way, it only increases the amount of money the government will need to pay out in benefits in the long run! Finally, 4) we need to incentivize people receiving government benefits to work towards not receiving those benefits anymore, both in training/education initiatives as well as extending benefits in a reduced amount as they earn more on their own. /rant

One more thing... Figuring out how to create jobs in a world that is increasingly automated is probably the biggest problem of them all, and I really don't know how to answer that one.