- It shouldn't require years of new research to make the obvious point that economic inequality is bad for democracy. Why? Because concentrated wealth translates into political power in ways that any seventh grade civics student can easily grasp (if civics were still taught). Rich people and companies have more clout because they can afford to hire lobbyists and give money to politicians, whereas most of us can't afford to do either of those things
Not necessarily this article but this topic may be the most important issue of the next 50 years.
It seems to me that this topic is what spawned the whole "occupy wall street" movement. The powers that be were able to make that movement seem ridiculous and never allowed it to gain popular support. It's amazing that the fact that we have a political disparity between economic classes that essentially amounts to taxation without representation. That said, much of the underprivileged is undereducated and therefore probably not fit to represent. That leaves education reform as the greatest cure for this problem. Could it be that this is why education reform is often talked about in campaigning but NEVER actually acted upon in a meaningful way? An ignorant public is a playable one?
Sorry cinderella you can't come to the ball we burned your dress. The sad part about it countries with greater enfranchisement Canada, Denmark, Germany, New Zeland also have higher standards of living and healther economies than the US and Britain that seem to me married to this economic inequality = stronger economy bollocks that has never been proven but is the central dogma (and possibly purpose) of the cult of neo-classical economics. There is a movement going on associated with ad-watch and yes men types (the folks behind occupy) to not let untested pseudo-scientific neo-classical economic rationales go unquestioned. (I think occupy was actually a provo to show police brutality to mainstream (read white) America. It succeed swimmingly.)