[vict7]

America has higher levels of inequality than any of its post-industrialized peers [0]. It’s absolutely an issue here. Combine that with the ability to purchase political power, and you get the mess we have today.

I think we actually agree on most things; I generally agree with all the rest of your points. Liberals may as well be controlled opposition now.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_Unite...

[anon291]

That's because its post industrialized peers are failing states though. Assuming you are speaking of Europe, Japan and the anglosphere (Canada, Australia, and NZ), they are all having serious existential issues

The European countries cannot pay for their own defense and rely on America, thus their definition of even existing as nations is up for debate really. They're more like protectorates of the United States. If they actually had to pay for the defense resources they consume, they would quickly fail.

Canada is similar to a degree and while it is its own country, really depends on the US to protect its basic existence

Japan is dying as is Korea.

Australia and NZ maybe but they're having real economic trouble and are nothing to emulate.

Ironically it's the fact that our economy is forced to be large enough to pay for everyone else's defense that forces the economy into more inequality than there would be were America only responsible for its own sovereignty.

Basically, if other countries had robust economies that were strong enough to provide for its own defense, they would be as unequal as the United States since inequality happens as economies grow and the benefits are not shared.

If you can show me a real country that provides for its own defense and does not depend on America that is more equal then please. Off the top of my head there are really only a few countries that even meet the criteria of being independent states. Of those, Russia, China, and India are the only important ones. Maybe Iran. Literally none of these are countries to emulate. America has higher social mobility than all of them, which is what really matters, not the difference between the richest and poorest

[vict7]

That’s a really interesting argument that I hadn’t considered. The US certainly has the unenviable position of being the world’s “policeman” for lack of a better term. Other countries wanting help from the US, yet also maligning it. Which… is probably more fair now than before to be sure.

> Ironically it's the fact that our economy is forced to be large enough to pay for everyone else's defense that forces the economy into more inequality than there would be were America only responsible for its own sovereignty.

This is the part I’m not fully understanding. Are you saying it’s because the US is forced to spend more on defense leaving fewer resources to reduce inequality? I don’t see how suspect people like Musk are a necessary outcome of this paradigm... I do get that there is an insane amount of money pumped into the military-industrial complex though.

If you take the (naive) perspective that returning to a higher level of taxation on the most wealthy would increase government income, reducing inequality is just a beneficial side-effect there.

Edit: I apparently missed your point about inequality correlating to the size of an economy. Are you saying it’s not possible to have an economy as large as the US with less inequality than is currently present?