The best I can tell is that you are trying to make some argument about politics, money, and investment bankers. Beyond that it is unclear as to what your argument really is. You are also busy making presumptions about what I believe and what premises I hold true that are not part of my post. So you spent a lot of time making and answering arguments that weren't there.
I don't have to assume that "government must have a power to act". The government has that power and uses it. Government is nothing but the means through which the ruling classes enforce their will. You can try to arbitrarily separate money, politics, resources, etc from one another but they are all part and parcel of the same package. Nor do I have to *assume* that you are owned by the government because although that ownership is not absolute, for the most parts you are owned by powerful. That is the very definition of power. A person holds power over another to the extent that he can bend the other person to their will.
You had two other misunderstandings: (1) In a democracy, the public can always vote the government to take the money from the rich and give it to themselves. In boom times, there is little risk of rocking the boat. But when there is an extended period of poverty, unemployment, etc this socialist force takes over and the only thing the elite can do is to support the politician who can win with taking the least from them. (2) your reference Malthus is completely off mark. Malthus' argument was about scarcity of resources. My argument is about the opposite, the over-abundance of goods and service with an extreme concentration of wealth and power. You will have to go back quite some ways in history to find parallels and they have always ended in one of two ways - a violent uprising or an increase in social welfare - usually both (think of 1524, 1789, 1917, etc). |
