Chris I agree with you about the equality under law. It is a joke. OJ Simpson etc. The poll you showed I am less impressed with. Too many of the questions are based on the government and how it is done. That type of question will probably make people vote along party lines. It does not say how many of each group is polled so the significance of the numbers are questionable. In any case the richest 1% is a sad split and in this case they have very little impact. Jed's idea that 13% of the 'elite' is better than nothing is disturbing as there is no value in waiting for the government to take action. I do not know Nick Hanauer. I think he is right. Going back 100 plus years there were revolutions because government did not react in time. Seldom have such revolutions created a new better world. However, the intention was to do so. In this day and age with so good communication this type of reaction is around the corner any day. If the government is a king or a class by themselves, which have more privileges than people in general coupled with a very uneven spread of wealth, then the prerequisite for revolution is there. Many people think that a distribution of the wealth via the government will be effective. (Why now, when they never did anything effective.) No, it is a question of adopting new technology, new law etc so people have a feeling of autonomy. That is a very important factor often translated as freedom. Alain has a good argument for a base income for all, in a parallel tread. It is obviously not time yet. It will take one of three routes as I can see. 1. People can see the advantages and it will change the attitude and politicians will no longer be a class by themselves. 2. A revolution. (Not desired as it creates instability.) 3. The government implement a watered down form to keep the revolution at bay. Most likely but with no long term value. There are of course many ways it might not happen in addition.
Best Regards , Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM) On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 11:49 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Chris Zell <chrisz...@wetmtv.com> wrote: > > Attitudes of the rich? >> >> >> >> >> https://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/29/1302820/-Someone-finally-polled-the-1-And-it-s-not-pretty?detail=emailclassic >> >> >> >> There you go. Yes, they have a tendency to be SOB’s. >> > > Ugh. Well . . . On the other hand, 13% of them say it is "the > responsibility of the government to reduce the differences in income > between people with high incomes and those with low incomes." > > 13% is better than nothing. > > 46% of other people said this. They are Democrats, I am guessing. > > Other wealthy people throughout history have said this sort of thing. > Theodore Roosevelt, for example. This is called enlightened self interest. > Here is a modern example I posted before: > > "The Pitchforks Are Coming… For Us Plutocrats" > > > http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014#ixzz3hr7nlghY > > - Jed > >
