Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[georgephillip]

If you cant think of any other reason the video ended in 2009 then I must come to the conclusion that your bias is so great that you cant see the forest for the trees.

My bias hasn't prevented me from noticing how 1% of Americans felt entitled to collect 95% of income gains between 2009 and 2012. It seems like a few of the trees value their needs above those of the forest.

1% of Americans felt entitled to collect 95% of income gains between 2009 and 2012.

Link?

Joe Scarborough: Top 1% took 95% of gains since 2009 | PunditFact

 

[bedowin62]

My bias hasn't prevented me from noticing how 1% of Americans felt entitled to collect 95% of income gains between 2009 and 2012. It seems like a few of the trees value their needs above those of the forest.

1% of Americans felt entitled to collect 95% of income gains between 2009 and 2012.

Link?

Joe Scarborough: Top 1% took 95% of gains since 2009 | PunditFact

I BELIEVE IT.

under obama; in the sixth year of our Messiah of "Change"; the rich and ONLY the richest are getting richer; while we have RECORD WELFARE AND UNEMPLOYMENT FOR THE MASSES


to put it another way; the rich got LESS RICH; or richer at a SLOWER PACE; than they are under obama; the rich made LESS MONEY under the "greedy Republicans" you left-wing losers try to paint as being in the pocket of the corporations

ironic isnt it?

 

[LeftofLeft]

Inequality is everywhere and always will be. Shared Misery is not a remedy.

 

[bripat9643]

Your video is a good illustration of what the common man did for capitalism, and I couldn't help noticing it stopped in 2009. Possibly capitalism has outlived whatever usefulness it once possessed?

If you cant think of any other reason the video ended in 2009 then I must come to the conclusion that your bias is so great that you cant see the forest for the trees.

My bias hasn't prevented me from noticing how 1% of Americans felt entitled to collect 95% of income gains between 2009 and 2012. It seems like a few of the trees value their needs above those of the forest.

If that is what in fact happened (which I seriously doubt), they didn't "feel entitled," numbnuts. They were entitled. They acquired that income legally, which means the were legally entitled. They were also morally entitled since every transaction involved was entirely voluntary.

 

[dnsmith35]

okay, I'll do the best I can. capitalism is not, in and of itself, evil. unbridled capitalism leads to control of people, countries and governments depending on the style of governments. Jefferson, Franklin and Madison warned us over 200 years ago this could happen in a democratic republic where a small number of legislatures would be allowed to control both laws and money. I see only one way to eliminate this problem, and that is by evolving our system into a direct democracy. just in pure money this makes sense - it is easier to buy the majority of 535 legislators than a majority of 210,000,000 voters.

I disagree!

1. 435 if those are members of the House, and each comes from a small congressional district. The problem with that is 200 years of gerrymandering. Each congressional district should be redesigned in as close a symmetrical shape, a square or rectangle fit in with all the other areas with as close to the same population as possible, then outlaw gerrymandering by Amendment to the constitution.

2. We should go back to the original method of choosing the Senate and the President.

3. issue is eliminating as much propaganda in campaigns as possible.

4. Effectively the entire process of politics because a local issue again as it was intended. People cannot be expected to know enough about candidates on a national basis as they do about the candidates from their local district. I know better what my neighbors in my town need more than do some puppeteer from far, far away. One size does not fit all and we can better manage our limited funds spent on our community that others who have no idea who we are.

5. That alone will eliminate much if not all this huge propaganda machine we call campaigning.

6. It also brings politicians down to individuals such that national party machines have less influence.

7.Better still, eliminate and outlaw political parties and elect our leaders on their own recognizance.

It would not kill our democracy to have PEOPLE run our country rather than Party Puppeteers.

There is no such thing as Laissez-Faire capitalism in existence anywhere today. Not only is capitalism not evil, it is the best economic system the world has ever seen and will improve the prosperity of a nation many times more than any other system, and though our left wing extremists don't want to admit it, it takes care of more people, leaving much fewer in real poverty, than any alternative.

Our economy has created a very divided 3 tier system, not because of the greed of the rich, but because of the ignorance of so many about the value of a strong economy driven by people of ambition instead in stead of the "to each according to his need" and from each according to his ability. All that kind of warped thinking does is to make the high achievers resent the low achievers until the society breaks down to there being no achievers of consequence. I learned this from experience having lived 21 years of my life living in 6 countries other than the US, and mostly in the 3rd world, to include socialist countries. What I dislike about any form of Marxism is two fold: more people live in poverty with only the leaders achieving any kind of prosperity, and, they inevitably have to turn to autocratic/dictatorship governments to control the people.

you do understand what a direct democracy is. the legislature authors and publishes the bills and the budgets requests. those are voted on by the citizens - not the "government". majority passes the measure except for budget and constitutional issues, which require a double majority. this would take care of your concerns listed and then some.

Yes I understand, but that was such an ignorant comment I presumed you were being sarcastic.

One of the most important parts of our system in the US IS A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT, such that low population states cannot to totally dominated by highly populated states. That is what was created and darn will is what continues to exist.

The fact is, I would like our government to succeed, and what you suggest would keep our legislative functions at a stand still. It will advance the old adage, give the people total democratic power to determine policies of the government and eventually they will vote themselves and the government into poverty. As it is, we have people, maybe even a majority, who are not sufficiently capable of understanding the critical issues which make up a situation, and who only see what the propaganda is telling them about someone's opinion as to the results of what is being voted to pass. No, that kind of democracy is doomed to fail. I believe we should back away from NATIONAL ELECTIONS OF ANY KIND, and make politics what it was intended to be, LOCAL. There is no way the majority of people can make decisions on a national scale. A pure democracy as you suggested is pure chaos.

 

[dnsmith35]

If you cant think of any other reason the video ended in 2009 then I must come to the conclusion that your bias is so great that you cant see the forest for the trees.

My bias hasn't prevented me from noticing how 1% of Americans felt entitled to collect 95% of income gains between 2009 and 2012. It seems like a few of the trees value their needs above those of the forest.

If that is what in fact happened (which I seriously doubt), they didn't "feel entitled," numbnuts. They were entitled. They acquired that income legally, which means the were legally entitled. They were also morally entitled since every transaction involved was entirely voluntary.

As was said earlier, the only real inequality of income exists between the .01% of our richest citizens and the 99.99% of the rest of the people. Wow, such a big deal!

 

[buckeye45_73]

Do you have any proof of that statement?

"In a world of plenty why are hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of people vulnerable at all? The vulnerable and exploited exist because of an inherently unjust social-economic system, which has caused extreme global inequality and built a divided and fractured world society."

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

I don't really care about other countries.

Just compare the "poor" in the US to the rest of the world and you have to come to the conclusion that our system is better for poor people.

Right...fuck income inequality because our poor have microwaves! We win!

Wow, so do you really think everyone will ever have the same amount of money....or is it just something for you to bitch about?

 

[bonehead]

I disagree!

1. 435 if those are members of the House, and each comes from a small congressional district. The problem with that is 200 years of gerrymandering. Each congressional district should be redesigned in as close a symmetrical shape, a square or rectangle fit in with all the other areas with as close to the same population as possible, then outlaw gerrymandering by Amendment to the constitution.

2. We should go back to the original method of choosing the Senate and the President.

3. issue is eliminating as much propaganda in campaigns as possible.

4. Effectively the entire process of politics because a local issue again as it was intended. People cannot be expected to know enough about candidates on a national basis as they do about the candidates from their local district. I know better what my neighbors in my town need more than do some puppeteer from far, far away. One size does not fit all and we can better manage our limited funds spent on our community that others who have no idea who we are.

5. That alone will eliminate much if not all this huge propaganda machine we call campaigning.

6. It also brings politicians down to individuals such that national party machines have less influence.

7.Better still, eliminate and outlaw political parties and elect our leaders on their own recognizance.

It would not kill our democracy to have PEOPLE run our country rather than Party Puppeteers.

There is no such thing as Laissez-Faire capitalism in existence anywhere today. Not only is capitalism not evil, it is the best economic system the world has ever seen and will improve the prosperity of a nation many times more than any other system, and though our left wing extremists don't want to admit it, it takes care of more people, leaving much fewer in real poverty, than any alternative.

Our economy has created a very divided 3 tier system, not because of the greed of the rich, but because of the ignorance of so many about the value of a strong economy driven by people of ambition instead in stead of the "to each according to his need" and from each according to his ability. All that kind of warped thinking does is to make the high achievers resent the low achievers until the society breaks down to there being no achievers of consequence. I learned this from experience having lived 21 years of my life living in 6 countries other than the US, and mostly in the 3rd world, to include socialist countries. What I dislike about any form of Marxism is two fold: more people live in poverty with only the leaders achieving any kind of prosperity, and, they inevitably have to turn to autocratic/dictatorship governments to control the people.

you do understand what a direct democracy is. the legislature authors and publishes the bills and the budgets requests. those are voted on by the citizens - not the "government". majority passes the measure except for budget and constitutional issues, which require a double majority. this would take care of your concerns listed and then some.

Yes I understand, but that was such an ignorant comment I presumed you were being sarcastic.

One of the most important parts of our system in the US IS A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT, such that low population states cannot to totally dominated by highly populated states. That is what was created and darn will is what continues to exist.

The fact is, I would like our government to succeed, and what you suggest would keep our legislative functions at a stand still. It will advance the old adage, give the people total democratic power to determine policies of the government and eventually they will vote themselves and the government into poverty. As it is, we have people, maybe even a majority, who are not sufficiently capable of understanding the critical issues which make up a situation, and who only see what the propaganda is telling them about someone's opinion as to the results of what is being voted to pass. No, that kind of democracy is doomed to fail. I believe we should back away from NATIONAL ELECTIONS OF ANY KIND, and make politics what it was intended to be, LOCAL. There is no way the majority of people can make decisions on a national scale. A pure democracy as you suggested is pure chaos.

so you would trust 535 people to run the entire government (as it is now). no matter how you slice it, the constitution must be changed to allow either method you may choose. better to choose a method which will throttle those 535 than to throttle the the entire citizenry.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

My bias hasn't prevented me from noticing how 1% of Americans felt entitled to collect 95% of income gains between 2009 and 2012. It seems like a few of the trees value their needs above those of the forest.

1% of Americans felt entitled to collect 95% of income gains between 2009 and 2012.

Link?

Joe Scarborough: Top 1% took 95% of gains since 2009 | PunditFact

Thanks for the link.

I couldn't find where they "felt entitled to collect 95% of income gains between 2009 and 2012". Maybe you found it?

I did see this.

During the Great Recession, from 2007 to 2009, average real income
per family declined dramatically by 17.4% (Table 1),2 the largest two-year
drop since the Great Depression. Average real income for the top percentile
fell even faster (36.3 percent decline, Table 1), which lead to a decrease in
the top percentile income share from 23.5 to 18.1 percent (Figure 2). Average
real income for the bottom 99% also fell sharply by 11.6%,

 

[georgephillip]

1% of Americans felt entitled to collect 95% of income gains between 2009 and 2012.

Link?

Joe Scarborough: Top 1% took 95% of gains since 2009 | PunditFact

I BELIEVE IT.

under obama; in the sixth year of our Messiah of "Change"; the rich and ONLY the richest are getting richer; while we have RECORD WELFARE AND UNEMPLOYMENT FOR THE MASSES


to put it another way; the rich got LESS RICH; or richer at a SLOWER PACE; than they are under obama; the rich made LESS MONEY under the "greedy Republicans" you left-wing losers try to paint as being in the pocket of the corporations

ironic isnt it?

Obama and his Republican AND Democrat predecessors serve the same 1% of Americans.
If you have the slightest interest in enhancing opportunity of equality, choosing between rich Republicans or rich Democrats won't help you very much.

 

[georgephillip]

1% of Americans felt entitled to collect 95% of income gains between 2009 and 2012.

Link?

Joe Scarborough: Top 1% took 95% of gains since 2009 | PunditFact

Thanks for the link.

I couldn't find where they "felt entitled to collect 95% of income gains between 2009 and 2012". Maybe you found it?

I did see this.

During the Great Recession, from 2007 to 2009, average real income
per family declined dramatically by 17.4% (Table 1),2 the largest two-year
drop since the Great Depression. Average real income for the top percentile
fell even faster (36.3 percent decline, Table 1), which lead to a decrease in
the top percentile income share from 23.5 to 18.1 percent (Figure 2). Average
real income for the bottom 99% also fell sharply by 11.6%,

I did find this:

"Scarborough said that under Obama, 95 percent of the economic gains have gone to the top 1 percent of earners..."

"Scarborough accurately reflected the findings of a much publicized report from Emmanuel Saez, a Berkeley economist. Other studies confirm the overall trend in that report, although the disparities in gains between the wealthiest Americans and everyone else are not always as large as Scarborough said and depend on how you define income.

"Scarborough’s statement is accurate but in need of clarification. We rate it Mostly True."

If the rich didn't feel entitled to their income share, why didn't they donate ALL of it to CHARITY?

Joe Scarborough: Top 1% took 95% of gains since 2009 | PunditFact

 

[Andylusion]

you do understand what a direct democracy is. the legislature authors and publishes the bills and the budgets requests. those are voted on by the citizens - not the "government". majority passes the measure except for budget and constitutional issues, which require a double majority. this would take care of your concerns listed and then some.

Another example of a system that would be so good, in theory, but has never panned out so well in practice.

Further, even under that system, it would end up a disaster for sure. Again the universal problem is that no matter what system of democracy you implement, the end result is that inmates run the asylum. The vast majority of people are ignorant, thus a democracy will always be run by the lowest common denominator.

And it's not even because people are completely stupid. It's more of people simply don't have time to learn every aspect of every issue.

Even if you have generally well informed people, that still doesn't mean they are going to be well versed in every issue, enough to vote intelligently.

Take something as simple as the minimum wage. Most people respond to that with zero intelligence and lots of emotion "Well it's only fair to pay people X amount! Companies are just greedy blaw blaw blaw"

That's an emotional response, not based on fact. The fact based response is "every single time you raise the minimum wage, prices go up, and people lose their jobs".

Not emotion. Just commenting on the empirical evidence.

But how many people even know the latter evidence, as compared to the former emotion?

So guess who controls the legislation in a democracy? Behold the power of stupid people in large numbers, and again, not stupid by mental capacity... just ignorance.

People don't have time. My sister has 5 kids. One infant suck on her, and waking her up all night. Two toddlers screaming. Two in school, and one asking to be driven to basket ball practice, and in the mean time she's fixing breakfast lunch and dinner, and paying bills, buying food, changing diapers.

And you think she's going to sit down, hunt around on the internet for a economics of the minimum wage report by the London School of economics, and spend 3 hours reading up to educate herself on the long term effects of the minimum wage before democracy vote on the minimum wage?

And she's not a single mom. You think the rest of society has more time to do that?

And let's even pretend for a moment, that in an alternate universe, my sister didn't have 5 kids. You think after working 5 days, getting home tired on a Friday night, that her big plans for the weekend are "I know... I want to sit down and spend 3 hours reading up research from the London School of economics on the long term effects of the minimum wage!"

Are you kidding? She's going out with hubby, or some of her gal pals, and relax.

I'm the kind of nerdy guy that likes to read up on stuff like that, but I'm a very very small minority of the population.

Thus, again, any system based on democracy, is always going to be ruled by the ignorant. It's unavoidable. That's why true democracies have never lasted, and always destroyed themselves.

 

[Andylusion]

"In Marxist economic analysis, income inequality increases under capitalism because capitalist firms substitute workers for capital equipment in the course of development (under competitive pressures to maximize profit).

"Over the long-term, this results in a rising organic composition of capital where less human labor is required in proportion to capital equipment, increasing unemployment and thereby exerting a downward pressure on wages by increasing the size of the reserve army of labour.

"The adoption of capital equipment that substitutes labor (or job automation) increases productivity and profits for the capitalist class, resulting in a situation of relatively stagnant wages for the working class amidst rising levels of income for the capitalist class."

Economic inequality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I realize you are not putting too much effort into posting, when all you do is 'cut and paste' from a link....

But that said, I do wonder why you even put in that little effort, when you must already know that what you are posting is obviously false, and we all know this.

Everything said has been proven wrong a million times over. Why post it again?

In fact, we're proving it wrong right now as we speak. We are engaging in increasing trade, and we are engaged in capital invest, and yet employment is slowly dropping right now. We did that in the 90s, and employment went down.

We hindered trade and capital investment in the 1930s, and had a great depression.

And lastly, this results in rising income for all classes. And in a true capitalist system, everyone is a capitalist. I'm a capitalist.

Are you seriously suggesting that the Chinese were better off in the more equal pre-78 system, where everyone was born, lived, and died, in complete impoverishment, but it least everyone was impoverished equally? They seem to like the current unequal system better.

 

[Andylusion]

Your video is a good illustration of what the common man did for capitalism, and I couldn't help noticing it stopped in 2009. Possibly capitalism has outlived whatever usefulness it once possessed?

If you cant think of any other reason the video ended in 2009 then I must come to the conclusion that your bias is so great that you cant see the forest for the trees.

My bias hasn't prevented me from noticing how 1% of Americans felt entitled to collect 95% of income gains between 2009 and 2012. It seems like a few of the trees value their needs above those of the forest.

I disagree with the premise. I have never met a rich person that felt "entitled" to being rich. They were rich because they did something that people found worth while to pay them for.

My uncle made well over six-figures for years. He didn't feel "entitled" to it. He worked his butt off, making high end manufacturing equipment that other people found valuable. He was paid that much because others deemed him worth paying for what he did.

The reason the burger flipper gets paid what they are paid, is because customers don't want to pay $30 for a cheap fast food burger. What the burger flipper is doing, isn't worth as much, as what my uncle was doing.

Equally, my uncle invest tons of that money into worthy investments. He didn't feel "entitled" to a huge return on investments. He simply got it because he invested wisely.

You people on the left, simply 'make up' what you think other people are thinking. I would guess, this is because you yourselves are the ones who feel they are entitled to stuff, so you just assume everyone else is like you.

We're not. I don't feel 'entitled' to anything. My stock portfolio made 23% last year. Not because I was 'entitled' to it. I simply picked wise investments, and they paid off. Perhaps next they will only get 5%, or maybe negative.

Most of the wealthy, make their money on investments. Instead of b!tching about them, how about you stop complaining and start investing.

 

[Publius1787]

Your video is a good illustration of what the common man did for capitalism, and I couldn't help noticing it stopped in 2009. Possibly capitalism has outlived whatever usefulness it once possessed?

If you cant think of any other reason the video ended in 2009 then I must come to the conclusion that your bias is so great that you cant see the forest for the trees.

My bias hasn't prevented me from noticing how 1% of Americans felt entitled to collect 95% of income gains between 2009 and 2012. It seems like a few of the trees value their needs above those of the forest.

And the subject is changed. I would respond but seeing as how you are arguing in bad faith I have no choice but to leave you be with the understanding that every time you get pinned in a corner you will simply forget the previous argument existed and skip right on to a new one as demonstrated above.

 

[Andylusion]

Joe Scarborough: Top 1% took 95% of gains since 2009 | PunditFact

Thanks for the link.

I couldn't find where they "felt entitled to collect 95% of income gains between 2009 and 2012". Maybe you found it?

I did see this.

During the Great Recession, from 2007 to 2009, average real income
per family declined dramatically by 17.4% (Table 1),2 the largest two-year
drop since the Great Depression. Average real income for the top percentile
fell even faster (36.3 percent decline, Table 1), which lead to a decrease in
the top percentile income share from 23.5 to 18.1 percent (Figure 2). Average
real income for the bottom 99% also fell sharply by 11.6%,

I did find this:

"Scarborough said that under Obama, 95 percent of the economic gains have gone to the top 1 percent of earners..."

"Scarborough accurately reflected the findings of a much publicized report from Emmanuel Saez, a Berkeley economist. Other studies confirm the overall trend in that report, although the disparities in gains between the wealthiest Americans and everyone else are not always as large as Scarborough said and depend on how you define income.

"Scarborough’s statement is accurate but in need of clarification. We rate it Mostly True."

If the rich didn't feel entitled to their income share, why didn't they donate ALL of it to CHARITY?

Joe Scarborough: Top 1% took 95% of gains since 2009 | PunditFact

Really.....

So how much do you earn at your job? Do you feel "Entitled" to everything you earn? How selfish of you. Why don't you donate it all to charity?

Further, to answer your idiotic question.... Most of those "gains" were gains in value stupid. If the value of your house that you bought, goes up $10,000, does that mean you can donate $10,000 to charity, because you don't feel "entitled" to it?

What completely moronic question.

 

[Publius1787]

My bias hasn't prevented me from noticing how 1% of Americans felt entitled to collect 95% of income gains between 2009 and 2012. It seems like a few of the trees value their needs above those of the forest.

1% of Americans felt entitled to collect 95% of income gains between 2009 and 2012.

Link?

Joe Scarborough: Top 1% took 95% of gains since 2009 | PunditFact

There goes that 1% number again.

 

[Andylusion]

If you cant think of any other reason the video ended in 2009 then I must come to the conclusion that your bias is so great that you cant see the forest for the trees.

My bias hasn't prevented me from noticing how 1% of Americans felt entitled to collect 95% of income gains between 2009 and 2012. It seems like a few of the trees value their needs above those of the forest.

And the subject is changed. I would respond but seeing as how you are arguing in bad faith I have no choice but to leave you be with the understanding that every time you get pinned in a corner you will simply forget the previous argument existed and skip right on to a new one as demonstrated above.

That is precisely what he does. The moment you pin him down on anything, where he can't figure out how to respond, he'll with do a whip-lash topic change, or he'll do another cut+paste post from some random link somewhere, as if posting from the link magically makes the last 5 posts disappear.

Just write it down. You beat him. He lost the argument, and has no answer. Get ready, he'll post more BS now.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Joe Scarborough: Top 1% took 95% of gains since 2009 | PunditFact

I BELIEVE IT.

under obama; in the sixth year of our Messiah of "Change"; the rich and ONLY the richest are getting richer; while we have RECORD WELFARE AND UNEMPLOYMENT FOR THE MASSES


to put it another way; the rich got LESS RICH; or richer at a SLOWER PACE; than they are under obama; the rich made LESS MONEY under the "greedy Republicans" you left-wing losers try to paint as being in the pocket of the corporations

ironic isnt it?

Obama and his Republican AND Democrat predecessors serve the same 1% of Americans.
If you have the slightest interest in enhancing opportunity of equality, choosing between rich Republicans or rich Democrats won't help you very much.

Opportunity of equality?

The world of genetic engineering has a -long- fuckin way to go before opportunity of equality is even a pipe dream, let alone a reality. For now, it's nothing short of fucking fantasy.

All men might be created equal in the eyes of the law. Genetically, tho? LMFAO

 

[bonehead]

you do understand what a direct democracy is. the legislature authors and publishes the bills and the budgets requests. those are voted on by the citizens - not the "government". majority passes the measure except for budget and constitutional issues, which require a double majority. this would take care of your concerns listed and then some.

Another example of a system that would be so good, in theory, but has never panned out so well in practice.

Further, even under that system, it would end up a disaster for sure. Again the universal problem is that no matter what system of democracy you implement, the end result is that inmates run the asylum. The vast majority of people are ignorant, thus a democracy will always be run by the lowest common denominator.

And it's not even because people are completely stupid. It's more of people simply don't have time to learn every aspect of every issue.

Even if you have generally well informed people, that still doesn't mean they are going to be well versed in every issue, enough to vote intelligently.

Take something as simple as the minimum wage. Most people respond to that with zero intelligence and lots of emotion "Well it's only fair to pay people X amount! Companies are just greedy blaw blaw blaw"

That's an emotional response, not based on fact. The fact based response is "every single time you raise the minimum wage, prices go up, and people lose their jobs".

Not emotion. Just commenting on the empirical evidence.

But how many people even know the latter evidence, as compared to the former emotion?

So guess who controls the legislation in a democracy? Behold the power of stupid people in large numbers, and again, not stupid by mental capacity... just ignorance.

People don't have time. My sister has 5 kids. One infant suck on her, and waking her up all night. Two toddlers screaming. Two in school, and one asking to be driven to basket ball practice, and in the mean time she's fixing breakfast lunch and dinner, and paying bills, buying food, changing diapers.

And you think she's going to sit down, hunt around on the internet for a economics of the minimum wage report by the London School of economics, and spend 3 hours reading up to educate herself on the long term effects of the minimum wage before democracy vote on the minimum wage?

And she's not a single mom. You think the rest of society has more time to do that?

And let's even pretend for a moment, that in an alternate universe, my sister didn't have 5 kids. You think after working 5 days, getting home tired on a Friday night, that her big plans for the weekend are "I know... I want to sit down and spend 3 hours reading up research from the London School of economics on the long term effects of the minimum wage!"

Are you kidding? She's going out with hubby, or some of her gal pals, and relax.

I'm the kind of nerdy guy that likes to read up on stuff like that, but I'm a very very small minority of the population.

Thus, again, any system based on democracy, is always going to be ruled by the ignorant. It's unavoidable. That's why true democracies have never lasted, and always destroyed themselves.

well, the Swiss must have figured something out. theirs seems to work. and I am not saying it would be easy to set up a direct democracy. My thoughts would be a select panel of citizens to advise the voters as to the benefits, drawbacks and costs of legislation before the vote starts. these people would have to be selected by the general public and not "elected". who knows, you might find people volunteering for this to make improvements in the government. unlike most, I consider government as just a tool to assist the citizens in obtaining and maintaining the constitutional rights - unlike others who feel government must constantly inform us of their choice of what rights they have determined we may be allowed. you are correct, though, a direct democracy will require the citizens pay more attention to issues that are to be voted on. so you choose - you want to be governed by 535 rich guys, or 210,000,000 people like you.