First, It can never be called justice when a person makes a decision that affects hundreds, thousands, or millions of other people. If a person is to actually be free, they must be directly involved in the process which governs their lives and are free to agree, disagree, and affect that process. Voting based representative democracy as practiced here in the United States fails to meet this basic qualification. Not to mention the world-wide ability the United States has to affect the life and death of an individual halfway around the world that is never allowed to be involved in the process which may at any moment determine their death.
The simplest argument I can make for this that a “liberal” or “progressive” (as opposed to a leftist) will understand is around women’s reproductive rights/abortion/feminism. The paramount defense is always put forth in the form of “this is my body, not yours”. This form of argumentation is fundamentally correct — yet needs to be established for a whole host of other issues. No person can make decisions for others and do justice. If we cannot make decisions for ourselves we do not retain our autonomy.
The decisions made by such an individual may be prudent, or efficient. They may result in a better situation that without the decision being made. They could easily result in terrible conditions or be called tyranny. But in no circumstances can these decisions be called just.
Second, It can never be called justice when agents of the state force you to do something or accommodate the state with something you find morally reprehensible. It can never be called justice when agents of the state are allowed and encouraged to lie and manipulate you for their own ends. The monopoly of force the state enjoys is the most basic form of non-freedom. It crosses over into fascism when the state enforces morals decisions with force, and those moral decisions become intwined with allegiance/dissent to the state. These actions come into play when the state denies you the ability to help those in need, or takes your home from you through either gentrification, redistricting, rezoning, or imminent domain. It also comes into play when the state uses the resources you provide against your wishes.
If people are not treated as equals then there is no freedom. Once a party is immune from the repercussions of their own actions, once they cease to be responsible, justice has been given away. The monopoly of force is the underlying problem here. When one side, agents of the state, have this monopoly people are no longer equal. Agents assume their actions are correct because of their immunity.
Third, it can never be called justice when a majority oppresses and silences a minority. Nor is it justice when a minority is able to prevent the justice desired by the majority. John Adams admitted in Federalist No 10 that the design of the United States Constitution was to enable the rich minority to prevent the just cancellation of debt and redistribution of land by the majority who were poor and at the mercy of the landed gentry.
All forms of representative government: Constitutional Monarchy, Parliamentary Democracy, a Democratic Republic, Democratic Socialism, and even Communism all fail each of these three fundamental principles of justice. This leaves me with Anarchism as a principled choice of order. Anarchism is not without order, but it is without hierarchy. It is not without governance, it relies on mutual agreement of true equals. Anarchism is not a singular arrangement, rather it is the process by which order and governance is agreed upon without the reliance on force, without agents of the state. There is no state.
There has been an article running around lately called In the Name of Love: Elites embrace the “do what you love” mantra. But it devalues work and hurts workers. I was of two minds when it initially hit everyone in the social world. The article is both very correct, and very, very wrong. And I want to put down my reasoning on the article. I happen to think that “Do What You Love” is the very way out of our labor situation. Everyone ought to be able to do what they love. And the problem is that they cannot. The writer’s problem is that he has swallowed whole the moorings of capitalism and unable to see the system is the very problem, rather than one class of worker causing the plight of another class of worker. They are both workers and subject to the capitalists.
The problem with DWYL, however, is that it leads not to salvation but to the devaluation of actual work…
I vehemently disagree with this statement. I think we’ve misunderstood what “work” is, and what “bullshit work” is. When speaking the service class, or, “jobs no one wants”, we should all be doing them in our spaces. Why punish someone into doing what we refuse to do?
“…and more importantly, the dehumanization of the vast majority of laborers”
I agree with this entirely, but i don’t believe this statement follows from the first
“But why should our pleasure be for profit?”…”labor is not something one does for compensation but is an act of love”
“If profit doesn’t happen to follow, presumably it is because the worker’s passion and determination were insufficient”
This is the first time we see the writer has swallowed the notion that “the market is always right”. Obviously, if you can’t make it doing what you love you’re not trying hard enough, not doing it right, and are rather forced to do something you don’t love to make money.
I happen to think the Steve Job’s quote is spot on. But to suggest that Apple’s exploitation of the international labor market is the only way that Steve Jobs can do what he loves is entirely fallacious. I don’t see how the Jobs quote and the Thoreau quote are at ends. Thoreau would lead me to hire Jobs to solve certain problems.
“Those in the lovable-work camp are vastly more privileged in terms of wealth, social status, education, society’s racial biases, and political clout, while comprising a small minority of the workforce”
This is entirely true, except the last clause. It isn’t a small minority, its a minority, but not small.
The problem with the writers’ point of view, in my opinion, is that he agrees with the basic assumptions of capitalism (market forces, labor and wage theory) and then is pitting one class of worker against another. The writer is doing the work of capitalists by getting those in service positions angry at “creative”/white-collar workers. Those who do “unloved work” in his terms, need just as much rescue from capitalism as do those who are doing “work” that they love. Both workers need to band together and overthrow the capitalists. “Do What You Love” can be the most pro-labor argument around — once you critique the system within which it operates: capitalism.
The writer is taking an incidental relationship; those from another class were able to do what they love within capitalism, while those from a lower class were not, and make it a causal relationship; only because the lower class can the higher class, without ever mentioning the true causal relationship — those with capital are exploiting all workers.
“If we believe that working as a Silicon Valley entrepreneur or a museum publicist or a think-tank acolyte is essential to being true to ourselves, what do we believe about the inner lives and hopes of those who clean hotel rooms and stock shelves at big-box stores? The answer is: nothing.
Hear, hear! This is precisely the argument we should be making. But not against workers who are able to do what they find existentially fulfilling — against the capitalists that exploit the labor of those who work doing what they hate, and exploit the labor and profit of those doing what they love
“Who, exactly, benefits from making work feel like nonwork?” “Why should workers feel as if they aren’t working when they are?” In masking the very exploitative mechanisms of labor that it fuels, DWYL is, in fact, the most perfect ideological tool of capitalism. If we acknowledged all of our work as work, we could set appropriate limits for it, demanding fair compensation and humane schedules that allow for family and leisure time.
And if we did that, more of us could get around to doing what it is we really love.”
This is the critique he never makes in the whole article, and should have been making all along Do What You Love is the way out — but the article makes the wrong enemy, other laborers, rather than the capitalists
I actually support the ad in question. It paints the picture of the world that Romney has created in the past, and would create as President — a world where the middle and low class has no access to healthcare. And then of course there is the feigned “impartiality” that he would also call out Romney for their lies. His campaign (not even Super PAC ads like the one in question) have created ads that are blatant lies that people have called them out on. Not a budge.
It is also telling that he doesn’t think Romney has abandoned his signature Massachusetts legislation. I’ve seen interviews where he does exactly that, he runs away from it. As a person who is personally benefitting from the legislation I can only imagine how many other small businesses (like the one I work for) could be created if people knew they could have affordable access to healthcare even when they’ve left the company they work for.
First, I want to explain my (unclear) usage of “public investment”. I used it to indicate corporate “investment in the public good.” I did misunderstand where Sachs was going. But it only exacerbates my point — the 2008 crisis (from a finance POV) was one of zero private (company) investment. So in the face of an immediate crisis short-term gov’t spending plans overtook long-term gov’t spending plans. Who is surprised by that reaction? But the fact that its being held up as a crisis of leadership is silly. Imagine the actual crisis of leadership it would have been to have no reaction to a short-term crisis.
Upon reflection I think the most shocking thing, about both Sachs’s article that started this whole thing and the ensuing discussion, was the misguided rhetoric. It followed the traditional two-sided news story: side-a vs side-b. Keynesian vs. Supply-Side. Part of the failure of the American intellectual and news media (not to confuse you that they are even close to one and the same) is whitewashing arguments and refusing nuance based on data.
In many ways Keynesian thought and Supply-Side are opposed. But it is a mistake to suggest that Keynes ever put forward a system. He put forward observations that resulted in tools. One of these tools is short-term stimulus spending. Since Day One Krugman (the quintessential Keynesian) has argued that the stimulus was not big enough. And that there are structural problems in the economy. And that we need big infrastructure spending on all sorts of upgrades. As we all know from the scant repair crews we do see, infrastructure upgrades take forever. None of these specific points are what make Krugman a Keynesian. But all of these points are ones that Sachs’s himself suggests. So I don’t know why he is whitewashing Krugman as part of the Keynesian problem. The other hilarious part is that the GOP, while heavily indoctrinated by Supply-side thought, become Keynesians when it suits their agenda. The fact that all this is lost in translation is patently sad.
I also checked in on the “no leadership” on large infrastructure projects claim he made. Two bills, S.1769 and S.1660, were filibustered by the GOP after being introduced by Democrats. Both bills took up the idea of AIFA from a previous bill introduced to committee. This AIFA was a $10billion fund for a bi-partisan group of 7 congressman to spend on infrastructure. And then the next year it would be $20billion. And $50billion the year after that. Sounds pretty intense and long-term to me.
This is largely for Dave Winer since he said write a blog post and I’ll read it.The only reason I am actually writing this blog post is because I know Dave is a well reasoned person and a good thinker willing to hear what people are saying (Hi Dave). I hope that this post clears up my take on voting for others as well.
I happen to think that Winer is dead right in his depiction and opinion of the current state, and future, of journalism and the media. I want to use that as the starting point to understand his tweet. And there are two ways to take Winer’s tweet:
People respect power expressed in votes. If #OWS could turn out voters, people would listen.
First, that people respect votes because voting is intrinsically good. That is to say, voting amplifies a dignity and spirit which speaks of our common humanity. It enlightens us and stands on its own. I disagree with this on its face. Voting is the expression of a choice. But choice is not the bedrock of freedom. False choices exist, and it is my position that we are being, and have been for some time, faced with a false choice.
Second, that people respect the ability to bring together large groups of people in a single action of voting. That is to say, voting is an extrinsic good which has the ability, under the right circumstances, to make an actual difference. I believe voting is an extrinsic good and can change things for the better. Today, however, doesn’t match these circumstances. I can understand that some might think “Wow, this movement can get people to vote together on an issue.” And, to some, that might be a wonderful thing. But, I believe this is a waste of energy.
Both candidates support the capitalistic system of Wall St. where money makes more money at the expense of people actually attempting to care for their material necessities. This can be seen in the US housing industry, in corporate pension plans, in municipal bonds that are bankrupting cities, in European austerity programs, in Commodities and Futures markets that defuse any developing country from having a self-sustaining agriculture, in corporations along with IMF backing first polluting and then taking and selling people’s water supplies. It can be seen in all the United State’s military endeavors where corporate employees outnumber troops three to one, where native peoples are being employed by US corporations taking them away from potential activities of rebuilding their own nations — because the corporations benefit from weak states. I cannot vote against the interests of Goldman Sachs. I cannot vote for a people’s bailout. I can only vote for bailing out financiers who created our mess, or austerity (which is no difference at all, bailing out the financiers gives them more money to continue and create opportunity for greater austerity in the future.) I cannot vote against the defense contractors which are building drones and missles that are killing innocent people all over the globe (which are labelled as military combatants now). And now these drones are crashing on US soil and are in the hands of police departments across the country, while we have over 60 US Air Force bases with drones stationed. I cannot vote to build the middle class and protect jobs. Neither party is willing to protect unions, while the GOP is willing to go after them openly. The unions are willing to donate to the Democratic party, but to what end? They are being systematically rooted out (starting in Wisconsin) and soon the Democratic party will have no basis for fundraising. And, as Dylan Ratigan often points out, the person who spends more money in a campaign wins 94% of the time. Winer understands what Roberto Unger says about Obama’s failure in office. I am, much less eloquently, saying the same thing Obama’s former professor is saying.
In summary — how is America going to have a third party when it doesn’t even have a second party? (Thank you @ChenguGold)
If I go over the two ways to take his reaction to questioning voting I am left dumbstruck. Voting is not an intrinsic good like dissent (not cynicism) is an intrinsic good. Dissent and the willful expression of true freedom — in the face of the illusion of freedom of choice between non-choices — by rejecting the options the status quo offers are the goal of Occupy. Occupy is not (sorry Bill Maher) the Tea Party of the Left.
There is not an extrinsic good valuable enough (to me, at least) to spend energy changing how people are going to vote. I, as one of many, refuse to present voting as a valid method of participation in changing the world. I refuse to give voting today a “blessing” of actual and true freedom. I refuse to imagine that focusing on getting people to vote is the magic solution. Conventional politics is definitively (thanks to Citizens United) an enterprise of the ridiculously wealthy and I refuse to construct the illusion that through voting we have the same power that the financiers who choose our politicians do.
Slavery in this country wasn’t ended through voting. Citizen voting perpetuated slavery was in economic and legal terms in the south after emancipation. The right of women to vote wasn’t enacted through citizens voting. The Civil Rights Act wasn’t enacted through citizens voting. The rights of unions weren’t enacted through citizen voting, nor were the rights that unions got for all workers over the years.
I fully support Lessig’s, Roemer’s, Ratigan’s (et. al.) hard work in getting Citizens United and reforming funding of elections in one fell swoop through a constitutional amendment. But getting such an amendment will never happen through voting. It is not in the financial interests of politicians (at least any politician on the national scene) to endorse and back this idea. Lessig is, of course, fully aware of this point. He thinks with enough pressure by the states, the federal legislature will be forced to move on this process. Now we’re seeing a massive increase of corporate money on the state level, and sometimes even local level, as well. The only thing powerful enough to accomplish this goal is shame. The shame of the people of the United States. It is evident today that politicians are capable of handling much higher levels of shame than they have in the past. This shame will not be accomplished by voting a few people out of office. I am fully convinced that this shame must be demonstrated in the streets.
As Unger proclaimed: “Obama must be defeated in this election.” He thinks that a loss by the Democratic party will redefine it. I, bluntly, don’t think it will. As Christopher Hedges points out in “Death of the Liberal Class”, the Democratic party was designed as a pressure valve between a Left party and a Right party. Ever since the destruction of a true American Left in the last decades of the 19th century through the first half of the 20th (thank you McCarthy) the pressure only runs in one direction — to the right. Which is why all policy over the last three decades has gone right, why the Supreme Court has gone right, and why the Democratic party has failed to have any news ideas that weren’t Republican ideas a decade earlier. What we have begun to believe, for lack of any other option, is that the Democratic party IS a leftist party. It was not, is not, and never will be.
Due to the lack of any leftist party why does voting make any difference? I contend it doesn’t. If we want to talk about “doing your civic duty” voting isn’t going to cut it. Doing your civic duty now means rejecting the false choices, rejecting the options the status quo gives you, and standing up for a free-er America that doesn’t terrorize the rest of the world while refusing the rights of its own citizens and acting against them in order to overflow the coffers of the unimaginably wealthy. This isn’t “take back our country.” This is “This is not my country.”
I am not naive. There are several good things that could happen if Obama wins. First, hopefully more liberal judges are appointed to the Supreme Court. But good luck getting that through Congress. Hopefully Roe v Wade doesn’t get overturned. Hopefully the rights for all the Other(s) in our society are broadened. But these rights will only allow people to exist long enough to be cogs in the machine of modern day capitalism. Are drones still going to kill innocents? Yes. Will we perpetuate terrorism at home and abroad? Yes. Will the middle class continue to be passively ignored, or actively given austerity such that they wither away? Yes. Will the financiers get richer? Yes. Should should I spend energy getting people to vote for this? I am glad people vote. But don’t hold it up as some holy and enshrined activity by which all progress it made. It isn’t.
One of the tabs I had open when writing this was an interview of Sartre years after the ’68 revolution. One of his responses perfectly captures the feelings I have on the subject (again, I fail utterly at expressing myself):
“I have been convinced of the following fact for several years: those who want to do something within the system only end up by preserving it. He who wants to overturn the system by his vote is profoundly in error, since voting opposes the legality of a movement to its legitimacy, e.g., an insurrectional movement. All those who obtain power legally are exactly the same.” Sartre
I want to overturn the system. We all see something terribly wrong, and the conversation that needs to happen is between those who see it and don’t want to overturn the system, and those who see it and do.
I guess some of this mad right-wing love comes from the idea that in America, anyone can become a Rich Guy if he just works hard and saves his pennies. Mitt Romney has said, in effect, “I’m rich and I don’t apologize for it.” Nobody wants you to, Mitt. What some of us want—those who aren’t blinded by a lot of bullshit persiflage thrown up to mask the idea that rich folks want to keep their damn money—is for you to acknowledge that you couldn’t have made it in America without America. That you were fortunate enough to be born in a country where upward mobility is possible (a subject upon which Barack Obama can speak with the authority of experience), but where the channels making such upward mobility possible are being increasingly clogged. That it’s not fair to ask the middle class to assume a disproportionate amount of the tax burden. Not fair? It’s un-fucking-American is what it is. I don’t want you to apologize for being rich; I want you to acknowledge that in America, we all should have to pay our fair share. That our civics classes never taught us that being American means that—sorry, kiddies—you’re on your own. That those who have received much must be obligated to pay—not to give, not to “cut a check and shut up,” in Governor Christie’s words, but to pay—in the same proportion. That’s called stepping up and not whining about it. That’s called patriotism, a word the Tea Partiers love to throw around as long as it doesn’t cost their beloved rich folks any money. Stephen King: Tax Me for F@%&’s Sake!
As Ron Paul continually runs for higher office more and more people are hearing some of his policies, and thus the word libertarian. This post isn’t about Ron Paul. Nor do I imagine that people who aren’t following politics, but now hear “libertarian” actually know what this political philosophy is actually founded on. I sure didn’t, but I saw a very in depth discussion on Reddit (yes, deal with it). So I wanted to dissect the underpinnings
The poster goes on to describe libertarianism as wholly wrapped around the defense of personal property (which includes ones person) and pure utilitarian ends. Any action undertaken by anyone — including the state — to remove personal property (which, in some way, includes currency) is understood to be immoral. Taxation is thus immoral. The poster goes on to suggest that a privatized court and police is a system that will work. I want to stop and consider these elements (ignoring his talk on education, with which I am fairly sympathetic).
First, I am surprised that a political system would revolve, wholly and purely, around property rights. This means that the political system will inherently favor those with more property over those who have less. It is a system devised explicitly for the powerful. A person with more property can gain more property easier than a person with less (Especially when the property in question is land and resources).
Second, I am surprised that any political system could ever describe state-printed currency as “property”. The currency would not exist without the state, just like “free” markets. All historical societies we have studied have no markets, and no currency until a state creates them. “Primitive currencies” are not currencies at all, and are traded to resolve issues of status, dignity, and un-payable debts. If the state prints the currency it has the ability to extract from the state-created markets a percentage of that currency for creating and maintaining said currency and markets.
Third, I am surprised by the naivety of the libertarian belief that “every man is an island” is demonstrably false. We have always, are now always, and continually will always be in relation to the other around us. To act as if that is not the case is naive and ignorant. This is, again, born out by the evidence of all communities which care about one another. In the case of communities that are bound together there is often a social interplay of resolving of debt – but there is the unquestionable motive to care for the other as one’s self. With the understanding that they will do the same when it is necessary.
Fourth, I am utterly shocked by the proposition that a private court and police system will work. We have seen the slide of previously “free-er” markets into very rigged and non-free markets (as the poster admits). First, any state or private entity capable of enforcing penalties must be powerful enough to violate the guilty’s defense of personal property. Why would you trust a private system rather than a public one? I understand the argument of “once a private company violates trust they’ll lose in the marketplace”. But if the private company is capable of violating personal property rights how do you stop them? Other companies step in? What happens in the case of collusion between companies? This system slides right back down into rigging the game.
There is a nice correlation between government corruption and the rise of powerful multinational corporations which can donate endless to the political cycle. It seems only a public, and transparent state, staffed by citizens which can, and must, be mindful of how much power the state acquires. Only with true and accurate information about these people can we choose (ostensibly through voting) who to trust with dispensing the state’s abilities. The troubles with our democratic and representative system is that our voting systems, districts, etc are rigged to hold power, those elected are not representative whatsoever (either in ideology or in material wealth), and the inability — likely due to both of these factors combined with corporate money — to get true and accurate information about the people and the process.
It seems to me that property ought not be the central issue of a political philosophy — especially in our digital age when “property” is becoming a very gray area.
Where Marx differed from Hegel was over just what kind of society emerged at the end of history. Marx believed that the liberal state failed to resolve one of the fundamental contradiction, that of class conflict, the struggle between the bourgeoisie and proletariat. Marx turned Hegel’s historicism against him, arguing that the liberal state did not represent the universalization of freedom, but only the victory of freedom for a certain class, the bourgeoisie. Hegel believed that alienation–the vision of man against himself and his subsequent loss of control over his destiny–had been adequately resolved at the end of history through the philosophical recognition of the freedom possible in the liberal state. Marx, on the other hand, observed that in liberal societies man remains turned into man’s lord and master and controls him. The bureaucracy of the liberal state, which Hegel called the “universal class” because it represented the interests of the people as a whole for Marx represented only particular interests within civil society, those of the capitalists who dominated it.
Fukuyama, pg 65
It seems that Marx was correct: within a liberal democracy the capitalists can exert mastery over others through economic means. The bourgeoisie and the proletariat need to be defined by this relationship – not by any analogizing to histories examples. Mastery and control are what Occupy Wall Street is protesting. It isn’t about jealousy. I keep seeing discussions like “We need to get rid of money” within Occupy. I think the sentiment is correct, while the details wrong.
Money is just economic fungibility. I might be able to trade writing, or fixing a bike, or moving furniture, for food. But I can’t trade web software for it. It’s too large and unwieldy to break down into small bits. This is why money/currency is created, for fungibility. To create equivalency between work. Whether the payment is deserving or just is a whole different argument (because that isn’t the argument I’m talking about). Money needs to exist.
One thing that popped into my mind while thinking about this section – What if money and capital were not related? Capital is what exerts mastery and control. A person with $100k/yr income doesn’t have mastery over someone who makes $50k/yr, or even $30k/yr. $100k isn’t capital, its just a bunch of money. Capital is just a resource that moves institutions, powers, businesses, industries, and people. Right now, capital ends up being a lot of money. But does it have to be money? What if it were a combination of trust, responsibility, and integrity. We obviously can’t pay people with these traits. But if you think money holds back things with trust, responsibility, and integrity you’re living in the old days. See Occupy for instance. New York has half a million. Another example purely outside politics: Kickstarter.
Money is just fungibility. Capital is the problem. Once we remove the fact that money makes up capital, perhaps we’ll have achieved a solution to Marx’s paradox of the liberal democracy.
It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher that ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people – whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.
This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights – among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.
As our nation has grown in size and stature, however – as our industrial economy expanded – these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.
We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.
In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all – regardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops of farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home and abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education;
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.
President Franklin Roosevelt, excerpt from State of the Union, January 11, 1944
Jeffrey Sachs from Harvard was saying that the United States is turning into a plutocracy. And this is a feeling you get throughout the world, that the politicians are not powerful and the power is in the hands of a few strong players in the business sector. Do you feel that way?
“We are still a democracy, but we have moved in my lifetime towards a plutocracy. We do not have a plutocracy, I want to emphasize that, but the distribution of wealth and the influence of wealth have moved in that direction.
“If you look at the 1992 top-400 tax returns in the United States, the average income for those 400 people was $45 million per person. The last available figures show $340 million per person – that is eight for one in a period when the average worker went no place.
“The average tax rate for the top 400 went from 28% down to 16.6% during the same period, so we have had a system where as people have gotten richer and richer, they have been favored by taxation and have gotten richer to a greater degree. To my mind that is a bad trend, and it will probably get corrected in time. The rich have more influence in politics than they did 50 years ago.” Warren Buffet