a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "How does this change without violence or revolution against the > oligarchs? We're gonna need a miracle" > > This situation has happened many times in history. It results in either a > revolution or the appearance of some charismatic leader that is able to > persuade the government it must be done. > In a democracy, you have to persuade the public that it must be done, not the government. In the case of the US, the charismatic leaders who changed the course of economic history most were Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt. They were prominent members of the oligarch class. Everyone knew they were, but the voters did not hold that against them because they were obviously in favor of reform and spreading the wealth. FDR in particular was called "a traitor to his class." Many wealthy people despised him. Not all of them, though. When I was young I knew many wealthy people who idolized FDR and considered him the savior of the capitalist system. That is called enlightened self-interest. It still exists. This is why, for example, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are in favor of the inheritance tax. As robots and computers improve, human labor will gradually become worth nothing. Every sensible person will see that we need a new economic system based on something other than the exchange of labor. Perhaps some stupid, greedy wealthy people will fail to see this, but I expect most of them will eventually come around, they will not stand in the way of a reform that allows the wealth to be shared equitably. In his latest book, Martin Ford points out that all of us contributed to the development of computers and robots with our tax money. As I have often pointed out, much of the technology was paid for or directly developed by Uncle Sam. In that sense we all own it, so we should all benefit from it. I think Bill Gates would agree. Societies seldom destroy themselves when there is an obvious and relatively painless way to prevent a catastrophe. Implementing a universal income would be relatively painless. I know that many conservatives would yowl and carry on in opposition to it, but I think that is theatrics. There is significant conservative support for a universal income. See: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/why-arent-reformicons-pushing-a-guaranteed-basic-income/375600/ - Jed
