Friday, April 4, 2014

Just Take It Away

I am always gratified when I see an idea I have been pushing for years, which was regarded as little more than a joke, start to be taken up by mainstream commenters.  One example is my notion that we'd all be a lot better off if we just admitted our great mistake of 150 years ago and kicked the mooching Southern States out of the country.  Here's another one, this time taken up by Alex Pareene at Salon:

"Want to cut the rich’s influence? Take away their money!

Roberts’ specialty is “faux judicial restraint,” in which he achieves his radical desired goals over the course of many incremental decisions instead of one sweeping one. In this case, as many observers have noted, Roberts pointed to our current easily circumvented caps on political spending as justification for lifting yet another cap, without noting that the Roberts court helped create the current system to begin with. Our campaign finance laws have not quite yet been “eviscerated,” but the trend is clear. Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas, who penned a partial dissent calling for all regulation of political spending to be eliminated, have something close to the same end goal, but Roberts is willing to be patient in getting there. 

 The Supreme Court is clearly not going to meet a new spending restriction that it likes any time soon. Instead of attempting to dictate how the wealthy spend their money, we are probably just going to have to take away their money.   And unlike speech, the government is very clearly allowed to take away people’s money. It’s in the Constitution and everything."

I've been pointing out for years now that letting the rich have too much loose cash is what causes bubbles, and the ensuing economic collapse that inevitably follows.  We simply cannot afford a society with so much money concentrated at the top.  Now, this problem has been compounded by a decades-long, very successful campaign by Republicans to pack the court system with corrupt judges committed to allowing the hyper-rich to do whatever they want.  The price?  Not just the sort of thing that happened in 2008, but a refusal to allow the government to move forward on climate issues- a refusal that threatens the very existence of the human race, all so a couple of thousand people can do whatever they please.

The obvious answer is to simply take their money away.  This can happen relatively peacefully if they allow it, or their heads could be taken away along with their money.  It's their choice, but if we don't find some way to accomplish this purpose, we are effectively enabling the destruction of civilization.  After all the years that I have been pointing out that this is what is happening, I'm thrilled to see some other people start to admit it.

1 comment:

Magpie said...

You don’t get to keep your money if it was ill-gained.
There is well-to-do, there is wealthy... and then there is monstrous engineering of concentrated hyper-wealth. That’s not the same.

A lot of the world’s wealth is actually missing.
I mean that literally. We don’t know where all the money is.
The financial forensics are still unequal to the task of solving the crime entirely, but is thought to be held by less than a thousand families who are trans-national crooks. They just roam the world living semi-nomadically between tax havens and pleasure centres, on yachts.. and so forth. There are so many layers of minion and conspirator that the best efforts of investigators can only recover a fraction of what they have thieved.
The dragon’s hoard.

I think I’ve mentioned this previously… In London the number of live-in domestic servants, as a percentage, has not been this high since the 17th century. They live in mansions that largely vacant of their owners, who drift in and out occasionally. Meanwhile London has housing shortages. Britain has vast public housing. Including perhaps the biggest public housing estate in Europe. Vertical slums in which millions of children live, some with respiratory conditions caused by the dank conditions. You see an interview with them talking of trying not to think about their next meal - because sometimes it doesn’t come. Something like 40% of children face food insecurity when school is out.

So as regards the criminally rich, I concur, if the dragon doesn’t want to give the gold back… slay it.

Turn the sound down for this:
I don’t doubt you’ve seen worse… but Harry Potter it isn’t.