05-29-2009, 12:43 PM
On the whole, there is plenty of truth in your bleak assessment of the ways in which the wealth and power (or lack thereof) in one generation is passed down to the next, although I'm not sure I'd go as far as you do in saying that these are absolute shackles. I see progressive taxation and social programs as a major help towards minimizing these problems. Kids from poor families are never going to be on equal ground with rich kids, but at least if they get public school, health care, and enough money to survive on, they're going to be a whole lot more competitive than if their parents have to yank them out of school and cancel their medical insurance just to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table.
However, the idea that the very wealthy are able to simply buy elections, but the Common Joes cannot collectively raise enough funds to be competitive is just wrong. This last presidential election, Obama raised over $250 million on donations less than 200$. That's a staggering quantity of money, in very small chunks. That's working and middle class people raising a little bit of cash, and sending it off. Democracy in action; the candidate people wanted won, and certainly not because he comes from some bigwig elite family!
I'm all for getting corporate money out of politics, but the wealth effect just is not that large. What was the last election Alan Keyes won? Or Steve Forbes? When you run the regressions, wealth only counts for a shockingly small fraction of a candidate's electability. The effect is disguised by the fact that popular candidates attract more cash, but in the end, they're winning because they're popular, not because they have the cash.
-Jester
However, the idea that the very wealthy are able to simply buy elections, but the Common Joes cannot collectively raise enough funds to be competitive is just wrong. This last presidential election, Obama raised over $250 million on donations less than 200$. That's a staggering quantity of money, in very small chunks. That's working and middle class people raising a little bit of cash, and sending it off. Democracy in action; the candidate people wanted won, and certainly not because he comes from some bigwig elite family!
I'm all for getting corporate money out of politics, but the wealth effect just is not that large. What was the last election Alan Keyes won? Or Steve Forbes? When you run the regressions, wealth only counts for a shockingly small fraction of a candidate's electability. The effect is disguised by the fact that popular candidates attract more cash, but in the end, they're winning because they're popular, not because they have the cash.
-Jester