In truth the problems we see in America are merely the manifestations of a long term trend that has resulted in a lack of respect for our republican form of government, as defined by our Constitution. One merely has to go through the range of stories covered only in this past week, to understand that we are at a critical juncture in our nation’s history. The issue to me is whether our country goes fully down the road towards empire. The phenomenon of a nation with overwhelming military superiority becoming imperial is a drama played out over and again over eons on the world’s stage. With empire perforce comes the trappings of an imperial state and with it the creation of an elite class defined by the term “nobility.”
When a society defines an elite, whether called “the Nobility”; “the Cream of the Crop”; “The Upper Crust”; or even “Celebrities”; you can be certain the need to have an “underclass” becomes imperative. From a psychological standpoint, once someone has the need to define themselves as being “elite”, they of necessity have to have people of “lesser worth,” to compare themselves to and to differentiate their status. For a society to maintain this status hierarchy, there then arises the necessity to have the “underclass” see ”their betters” as superior beings, living superior lives to their own. The “elite” must by definition be more beautiful, more wise and smarter than the “mob” beneath them. The “elite” set the trends and the fashions and it seems the “mob” is always one or two steps behind their lead. I believe that this is what we are observing today in our country. As an example of this we were treated to the spectacle of one cable news network (CNN), devoting 24 hours of exclusive coverage to the birth of an heir to the English Throne.
To my mind, there is no person in America who exemplifies the trend to establish a 21st Century nobility in this country, via celebrity, than the man now known as “The Donald”, the sadly ubiquitous Mr. Trump. As a New Yorker at the beginning of this man’s rise to fame, I watched with amusement and then disgust as he turned himself into a “brand,” that to us common folk represented wealth, fame and its attendant luxury. Donald Trump had the good fortune to be born into a family that had become quite wealthy due to his father Fred’s real estate holdings. Fred offered apartments for low income residents. These were located in the “outer boroughs” of New York City and were models of the 40’s and 50’s hi-rise communities. “The Donald” joined his father’s company in the early 70’s. His contribution to this already wealthy company was to begin operations in Manhattan. The Trump real estate operation had heretofore been located in what were considered the less classy counties in New York City and in fact it was located in some of the least desirable areas of those boroughs. The new focus on Manhattan, required that the Company extend its brand to cater to a more upscale group of clients. Fred Trump’s original operation catered to a much different clientele:
“ [Fred]Trump embarked on a career as an entrepreneur through real estate development, building, and operating affordable rental housing via large apartment complexes in New York City, including more than 27,000 low-income multifamily apartments and row houses in the neighborhoods of Coney Island, Bensonhurst, Sheepshead Bay, Flatbush, and Brighton Beach in Brooklyn and Flushing and Jamaica Estates in Queens” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Trump.
With the exception of Jamaica Estates in Queens County, all of the areas Fred Trump developed, were considered working class to lower middle class areas. “The Donald” had a different vision for the direction the company should take. The middle 1970’s were a difficult time for New York City. The City was close to declaring bankruptcy. President Gerald Ford’s attitude was characterized in the Daily News as “Ford Tells NYC to Drop Dead.” Manhattan real estate was relatively cheap in NYC at the time. However, the Borough of Manhattan has always been considered as the heart of NYC, not only from a New York perspective, but also as a country(world)wide perspective. As such you really can’t go wrong investing in Manhattan real estate. The Donald began to negotiate favorable real estate deals:
“In 1971 Trump moved to Manhattan and became involved in larger building projects and utilized attractive architectural design to win public recognition.[8] He made plans to acquire and develop the old Penn Central for $60 million with no money down.[50] Later, with the help of a 40-year tax abatement from the New York City government, he turned the bankrupt Commodore Hotel into the Grand Hyatt [51] and created The Trump Organization.[52]
The New York City government had a plan to build the Javits Convention Center on property Trump held a right to buy option. Trump estimated his company could have completed the project for $110 million [53] but the city rejected his offer and Trump received a broker’s fee on the sale of the property instead. The Wollman Rink in Central Park, was started in 1980 with an expected 2½-year construction schedule but was nowhere near completion by 1986. Trump took over the management of the project, at no cost to the city, and completed it in six months using $750,000 of the remaining $3 million budget.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump
As a lesson for all budding entrepreneurs, I highly recommend being able to acquire a $60 million property for no money down. Especially one located down the block from Macy’s landmark store. Also 40 year tax abatement’s in prime Manhattan real estate can be quite helpful in building ones wealth. Of course, while one needs vision to see the potential of these types of ventures, having ones father’s multi-million dollar real estate company in back of you certainly helps to not only gain entree, but also is quite convincing to sources of finance. It was, however, Trump’s marriage to his first wife that began to solidify and create the Trump brand:
“Trump is popularly known as The Donald, a nickname perpetuated by the media after his first wife Ivana Trump, a native of the Czech Republic, referred to him as such in an interview.“
“In 1977, Trump married Ivana Zelníčková and together they have three children: Donald, Jr. (born December 31, 1977), Ivanka (born October 30, 1981), and Eric (born January 6, 1984). They were divorced in 1992. In 1993, he married Marla Maples and together they had one child, Tiffany (born October 13, 1993). They divorced on June 8, 1999. In a February 2008 interview on ABC’s news program Nightline, Trump commented on his ex-wives by saying, “I just know it’s very hard for them (Ivana and Marla) to compete because I do love what I do. I really love it.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump
The truth was that it was Trump’s marriage to the exotic, foreign Ivana, that began to conflate the Trump Brand with luxury. Perhaps it was with The Donald’s encouragement that Ivana set out to make them a golden couple in New York City. There were magazine photo spreads of their “golden” apartment (a gross concoction of what appeared to be a “Louis Quatorze” style of interior design), gossip column stories about their swank parties and constant newspaper mentions of the Trump’s being at the upscale events that define NYC’s elite. As the beautiful, blonde Ivana aged into a handsome maturity, The Donald’s eye apparently went elsewhere in search of a more appropriate “trophy wife”, that would further enhance his image. That was when Marla Maples entered his life and a new “Golden Couple” appeared constantly in the daily newspapers gossip columns. Somewhere along the line, Donald Trump became more of a brand name than an entrepreneur. Also by the waning of the Reagan 80”s, Trump’s financial reputation began to suffer:
“This expansion, both personal and business, led to mounting debt.[56] Much of the news about him in the early 1990s involved his much publicized financial problems, creditor-led bailout, extramarital affair with Marla Maples (whom he later married), and the resulting divorce from his first wife, Ivana Trump.
By 1989, poor business decisions left Trump unable to meet loan payments. Trump financed the construction of his third casino, the $1 billion Taj Mahal, primarily with high-interest junk bonds. Although he shored up his businesses with additional loans and postponed interest payments, by 1991 increasing debt brought Trump to business bankruptcy[56] and the brink of personal bankruptcy. Banks and bond holders had lost hundreds of millions of dollars, but opted to restructure his debt to avoid the risk of losing more money in court. The Taj Mahal re-emerged from bankruptcy on October 5, 1991, with Trump ceding 50 percent ownership in the casino to the original bondholders in exchange for lowered interest rates on the debt and more time to pay it off.[57]
The late 1990s saw a resurgence in his financial situation and fame. In 2001, he completed Trump World Tower, a 72-story residential tower across from the United Nations Headquarters.[58] Also, he began construction on Trump Place, a multi-building development along the Hudson River. Trump owns commercial space in Trump International Hotel and Tower, a 44-story mixed-use (hotel and condominium) tower on Columbus Circle. Trump currently[when?] owns several million square feet of prime Manhattan real estate,[59] and remains a major figure in the field of real estate.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump
As the years progressed Trump also became involved in various contentious lawsuits:
“In March 1990, Trump threatened to sue Janney Montgomery Scott, a stock brokerage firm, whose analyst had made negative comments on the financial prospects of Taj Mahal. The analyst refused to retract the statements, and was fired by his firm.[63] Taj Mahal declared bankruptcy for the first time in November 1990.[64] A defamation lawsuit by the analyst against Trump for $2 million was settled out of court.[65] On November 2, 1992, the Trump Plaza Hotel filed a prepackaged Chapter 11 protection plan. Under the plan, Trump agreed to give up a 49 percent stake in the luxury hotel to Citibank and five other lenders. In return Trump would receive more favorable terms on the remaining $550+ million owed to the lenders, and retain his position as chief executive, though he would not be paid and would not have a role in day-to-day operations.[66]
By 1994, Trump had eliminated a large portion of his $900 million personal debt[67] and reduced significantly his nearly $3.5 billion in business debt. While he was forced to relinquish the Trump Shuttle (which he had bought in 1989), he managed to retain Trump Tower in New York City and control of his three casinos in Atlantic City. Chase Manhattan Bank, which lent Trump the money to buy the West Side yards, his biggest Manhattan parcel, forced the sale of the tract to Asian developers. According to former members of the Trump Organization, Trump did not retain any ownership of the site’s real estate – the owners merely promised to give him about 30 percent of the profits once the site was completely developed or sold. Until that time, the owners of The West Side Yards gave him modest construction and management fees to oversee the development, and allowed him to put his name on the buildings that eventually rose on the yards because his well-known moniker allowed them to charge a premium for their condos.[68]
Trump was elected to the Gaming Hall of Fame in 1995.[69] In 1995, he combined his casino holdings into the publicly held Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts. Wall Street drove its stock above $35 in 1996, but by 1998 it had fallen into single digits as the company remained profitless.
In January 2002, the Securities and Exchange Commission brought a financial-reporting case against Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts Inc., alleging that it had committed several “misleading statements in the company’s third-quarter 1999 earnings release.” The matter was settled with the defendant neither admitting nor denying the charge.[70]
Finally, on October 21, 2004, Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts announced a restructuring of its debt.[71] The plan called for Trump’s individual ownership to be reduced from 56 percent to 27 percent, with bondholders receiving stock in exchange for surrendering part of the debt. Since then, Trump Hotels has been forced to seek voluntary bankruptcy protection to stay afloat. After the company applied for Chapter 11 Protection in November 2004, Trump relinquished his CEO position but retained a role as Chairman of the Board. In May 2005[72] the company re-emerged from bankruptcy as Trump Entertainment Resorts Holdings.[73]
Lender Deutsche Bank refused to let Trump lower the prices on the units to spur sales. Arguing that the financial crisis and resulting drop in the real estate market is due to circumstances beyond his control, Trump invoked a clause in the contract to not pay the loan.[74] Trump then initiated a suit asserting that his image had been damaged. Both parties agreed to drop their suits, and sale of the units is nearly complete.[75]
On February 17, 2009 Trump Entertainment Resorts filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy; Trump stating on February 13 that he would resign from the board.[76] Trump Entertainment Resorts has three properties in Atlantic City.”
The Donald’s sense of entitlement led him to develop a golf course project in Scotland. In my opinion he chose Scotland because that is the land where golf was invented more than 500 years ago. Having a luxury golf course and resort there would give the Trump name the cachet associated with hundreds of years of this elite sports’ history. The following though, shows his highhandedness and sense that he is a most important person:
“In 2006, Trump bought the Menie estate in Balmedie, Aberdeenshire, Scotland announcing that he intended to create the best golf course in the world[92][93] on a site of special scientific interest (SSSI).[94] The project includes plans for a hotel, holiday homes, housing and two golf courses. It led to controversy, with opposition voiced by environmentalists, and planning permission was initially refused by Aberdeenshire Council. In 2008 the local authority was overruled by the Scottish government,[95][96] First Minister Alex Salmond citing economic benefits Trump had promised as justifying the unusual step of permitting development on an SSSI.[97] These figures were disputed by the London School of Economics.[98]
In 2009, Aberdeenshire Council received a request on behalf of Trump International Golf Links Scotland to approve compulsory purchase orders on a number of local homes. A protest group campaigned actively, using mass land purchase as a tactic.[100] In late January 2011 Trump International stated that it had “no interest” in pursuing compulsory purchase orders[101] and that it had never applied for them.[102][103][unreliable source?]
An award-winning 2011 documentary film, You’ve Been Trumped,[104][105] by Anthony Baxter, follows the development’s progress, showing Trump speaking locally about his ambitions for the project, insulting a local farmer, who he claimed lived in “a slum”, and being awarded an honorary degree by The Robert Gordon University, in spite of a professor at that university returning his own honorary degree in protest.[106][unreliable source?] It also queries the supposed economic benefits, the ecological impact and the effect on local residents.[98][107] When it was announced that the documentary was to be given its UK television première on BBC Two on October 21, 2012,[108] Trump’s lawyers contacted the BBC to demand that the film should not be shown, claiming that it was defamatory and misleading. The screening went ahead, the BBC defending the decision and stating that Trump had refused the opportunity to take part in the film.[109]
Trump has objected to plans for an offshore windfarm to be built within sight of the golf links. In 2011, he wrote to First Minister Alex Salmond expressing his view that the planned structures were ugly. He denied that he was concerned only with the view from the golf links, saying, “It is not only for my project, it is more to preserve Scotland’s beautiful coastline and natural heritage.”[110] In 2012, Trump announced that if the windfarm were built he would abandon his plans for the hotel and housing at the golf links.[111] Trump’s advertisement comparing wind farms to terrorism was banned by the Advertising Standards Authority.”
Trump has extended his brand into owning the “Miss Universe” contest and:
“The Miss Universe Organization has been owned by Donald Trump since 1996 and the National Broadcasting Company (NBC) became a joint partner in 2003. The organization produces the Miss Universe, Miss USA, and Miss Teen USA pageants. In December 2006, talk show host Rosie O’Donnell criticized Trump’s lenience toward Miss USA, Tara Conner, who had violated pageant behavioral guidelines. This sparked a tabloid war between the two celebrities which lasted for several weeks thereafter.”
Trump has also become a TV star:
“In 2003, Trump became the executive producer and host of the NBC reality show, The Apprentice, in which a group of competitors battled for a high-level management job in one of Trump’s commercial enterprises. The other contestants were successively “fired” and eliminated from the game. In 2004, Donald Trump filed a trademark application for the catchphrase “You’re fired.”[5][6][7]
For the first year of the show Trump was paid $50,000 per episode (roughly $700,000 for the first season), but following the show’s initial success, he is now[when?] paid a reported $3 million per episode, making him one of the highest paid TV personalities.[citation needed] In 2007, Trump received a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame for his contribution to television (The Apprentice).
Along with British TV producer Mark Burnett, Trump also put together The Celebrity Apprentice, where well-known stars compete to win money for their charities. While Trump and Burnett co-produced the show, Trump stayed in the forefront, deciding winners and “firing” losers.”
The premise of Trump’s fame is that he is a financial genius and a superb manager. His history as shown, reveals that this is not truly the case. Trump is a man who has artfully marketed himself as something he is not. Nevertheless, the man has managed to sell himself and the lavish lifestyle of America’s upper classes, as something that the rest of us should bow to and emulate. A Trump story appeared that shows how the man has used his carefully created mythology to further make money, selling the myth to people that by emulating his “wisdom” they too can become rich and join the elite:
(CNN) – New York’s attorney general accused Donald Trump in a lawsuit Saturday of defrauding students who studied at the billionaire mogul’s investment institute, though Trump’s representative said a large majority of the school’s alumni were satisfied with their experience. The $40 million civil suit alleges Trump made false claims about the school, including that he was personally involved in selecting instructors and creating the curriculum.
Eric Schneiderman, the New York attorney general, said Trump had crafted a “bait and switch” with his school, using his well-known name. “Trading on his celebrity status, Mr. Trump personally appeared in advertisements making false promises to convince people to spend tens of thousands of dollars they couldn’t afford for lessons they never got,” he wrote in a statement. “No one, no matter how rich or famous they are, has a right to scam hard working New Yorkers. Anyone who does should expect to be held accountable.”
The suit names both Trump, the chairman of the school, and Michael Sexton, its former president, as defendants. Schneiderman is seeking $40 million to repay customers who have enrolled in the school, as well as additional penalties and fines. On Twitter, Trump called Schneiderman a “lightweight” and said the attorney general was “trying to extort me with a civil law suit.”
He also linked to a website that claims 98% of Trump University’s former students were satisfied with their experience. Michael Cohen, executive vice president of the Trump Organization and a lawyer for the billionaire, said the suit “has no merit and is nothing more than a cheap publicity stunt to deflect from (Schneiderman’s) weak job performance.”
“I am shocked he didn’t leak it to the Kris Kardashian show,” Cohen continued. “Maybe his office should focus more of their attention and the use of our tax dollars on bringing to justice those responsible for the financial meltdown.” Cohen also pointed to the website citing an approval rating of 98% for the Trump investing classes, saying the figure was derived from questionnaires submitted by students upon completing the course of study. He said the website was created in anticipation of the lawsuit.
Trump University became the Trump Entrepreneur Initiative in 2010 after the New York State Education Department said the company could not use the term “university” without its consent. In 2011, the attorney general began investigating it, along with several other for-profit educational institutions.
Former students in California have also sued Trump’s school, saying its advertising misled them into spending thousands of dollars on workshops and “mentorships.” In a class-action suit filed in 2010, the former students say Trump University is “like an infomercial” that lures customers with the Trump name but fails to deliver on its promises of success in real estate.
The Trump school offered courses in real estate, asset management, entrepreneurship and wealth creation. The courses ranged in price from $1,495 for a three-day workshop to $34,995 for a “full education.” Unlike other for-profit schools, Trump’s outfit relies heavily on the brand of its namesake. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/08/25/n-y-attorney-general-suing-trumps-school-for-fraud/
The norm for “The Donald” is to strike back at those who attack him by essentially calling them names that are quite true about Trump himself. He accuses Schneiderman of having “weak job performance”, when in truth Trump’s record as an entrepreneur is the epitome of incompetence rescued through wealth and connections. Attorney General Eric Schneiderman responded:
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman blasted Donald Trump on HuffPost for allegedly making false promises and scamming student entrepreneurs out of money at Trump University. In describing the alleged scam, Schneiderman brought up Bernie Madoff and when asked by host Ahmed Shihab-Eldin whether the two cases were similar, the New York attorney general drew comparisons between the real estate tycoon and Madoff.
“What they were telling people they were going to get is clearly not what they got,” Schneiderman said of Trump’s promises to teach his secrets to success in real estate. “And look unfortunately in hard economic times, desperate people sometimes make the best victims.”
“There’s a class action [lawsuit] on behalf of his students against him in California,” continued Schneiderman. “[Trump] sued the named plaintiff for defamation. It was struck down by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, a major federal court that said, ‘Victims often sing the praises of their victimizers until the moment they realize their money is gone,’ and compared Trump to Bernie Madoff.”
When asked directly if Trump is like Madoff, Schneiderman said, “It was a scheme to lure people in with promises of very unrealistic returns on their investment and returns on their time …. It was really ludicrous representations that were being made. And about 5,000 people across the country were deceived, and they put up about 40 million bucks, a lot of it ending up in Mr. Trump’s pocket. It’s just a plain old bait and switch scheme. It’s a classic.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/27/ny-attorney-general-trump-madoff_n_3824869.html
We are fast creating a culture in America that worships wealth and celebrity. This new nobility are people who seemingly have become immune to failure. They have also become role models for a populace that finds itself slowly descending into an almost serf like status, panicked by the possibility of falling into the lower classes. They grasp at straws and envision themselves above the crowd, living the charmed life of the elite. How sad it is that someone would let themselves be duped into thinking that Donald Trump could teach them how to get rich and thus rise into the upper class, which in truth in popular mythology has become the only class that matters. Many of us have been sold the myth that it is only wealth and fame that matters. They strive to grasp this golden ticket into happiness by any means possible, including paying dear money to a glorified huckster whose only wisdom is how one can be born rich and thus stay that way. If those like Trump, the Koch’s, the Mellon’s and the Bush’s have their way almost all of us will become serfs, living on their largesse and acting for their pleasure.
ElephantTail 
August 28, 2015 at 10:47 pm
Well, I have read Piketty! All 650 pages.
I am not sure the problem can be solved. My opinion, post-Piketty, is that the root of the problem is bound up in our conceptions of property, inheritance, and rentiers. We will fight to the death before giving those concepts up, but they lead directly to the current situation, time after time, century after century, civilization after civilization.
I’ll save you all 650 pages. Here is the outline.
1) People are allowed to own things, without limit.
2) In particular, useful things, like real estate or various kinds of equipment.
3) The owners can “rent” the things they own for money.
4) “Rent” is a special class of income, it is without labor or merit for the owner: They do nothing for it, if they have honest employees they can literally be brain dead and collect the rent.
5) With no limit to ownership there is no limit to rent collected.
6) Property changes hands. Losses (self inflicted or caused by nature) can demand sales to get money.
7) Collected Rent can be reinvested in more property to create more rent collected.
8) The ownership of property can be handed down.
The arithmetic is unfortunately exponential and the tendency is for property to attract more property, like gravity, until there are many large bodies of property and almost no small ones: Large estates with serfs.
What stops it is violent revolt that redistributes the property, but that has always been temporary. Another thing is discovering new property for the taking (like the American Continent) but that runs out, too. You can’t just go stake out 100 acres of great farmland anymore, build a fence and call it your own. WW II was a big reset, and after that was a period of egalitarianism, but 2000 years of world history before that keeps coming to the same conclusion: Property will clump in large bodies. It is the nature of humanity. We are truly entertained by Spielberg, so we give him 3.6 billion dollars, and that creates its own gravity: He personally earns about 10% on that every year without having to do anything.
We don’t want to give up ownership, or inheritance, or rent. (e.g. my grandson is autistic, and without my money I risk him living a life of misery.)
Our eventual serfdom semes to be a direct result of our beliefs about property.
LikeLike
August 29, 2015 at 12:18 am
“We will fight to the death before giving those concepts up, but they lead directly to the current situation, time after time, century after century, civilization after civilization.”
MM,
This goes along with my thinking as well. I see it as the reality that we organize our societies in a similar manner to that of the Great Apes. One’s perception of self and freedom of choice comes from ones place in the hierarchy. Property is merely another token of status and power. The solution is social evolution, but the prospects are dim for any future time.
LikeLike
August 29, 2015 at 12:05 pm
Mike: Well, arguing against my own damn self, as I am wont to do, the Nordic Model still gives me some hope.
If that went worldwide, we’d have a chance.
LikeLike
August 30, 2015 at 4:12 pm
The Nordic Model can change the game considerably, I think, because it largely neutralizes the advantages of being born rich, or more accurately, it neutralizes the disadvantages of being born poor.
That means life essentials (nutrition, shelter, health care, safety, reitrement) are all guaranteed and free. School is free (in Norway to any level of education anywhere in the world: If any Norwegian citizen can get accepted at Harvard, Norway will cover tuition, books and living expenses).
The Nordic model is a mix of socialism and capitalism; the socialism effectively ensures equality of survival for all citizens, the capitalism after that allows competition of ideas, products, and services in the non-survival fields.
On top of that add a policy of national resources being converted to cash and deployed as capital in trust for the people. Which is much different than the USA and other countries charging fees or royalties to private enterprise for their exploitation of such resources, like offshore oil.
Norway has the greatest percentage of entrepreneurs per capita of any country, because there is not much risk in starting a business; capital and investors can be found, and even if you are surviving at welfare wages for years and ultimately fail, you haven’t sacrificed your family, your health, the education of your children, or your own future or retirement — All of which are at risk for American entrepreneurs that do not start rich.
I cannot imagine what the Nordic model would do if it were implemented in America, or indeed throughout the World. I’d like to see that, though.
LikeLike
August 30, 2015 at 4:34 pm
MM,
Yes the “Nordic Model” works and works well. I think it near an ideal mix of economic styles. The problem with that becoming adopted in the US and in various other countries is I think twofold. The first is that in America a mythology of the “rugged individualist” has built up and so the idea of citizens being protected by the State from poverty seems “sissified”. Secondly, I’m beginning to be persuaded more and more, that the great problem of the world is that sociopaths tend to rise to power. Without empathy for the people leaders tend to use them as sheep or cannon fodder.
LikeLike
August 30, 2015 at 5:21 pm
I have read Norway’s politicians say the brake on self-serving power is two-fold: All income to any individual is public record. You can look up what your neighbors make, your boss makes, or any politician makes. And citizens have the right by popular vote, on demand, to repeal any law passed or prevent the repeal of any existing law. The article I was reading said such referendum was almost never exercised for cultural reasons, because for Norwegian politicians being overturned by referendum was considered a career-ender.
I think those measures in Norway guide the sociopaths into capitalism instead of politics; unlike America Norway has made it difficult to get rich as a politician.
In that respect, it may have something to do with their size (5 million people). That prohibits a very large military-industrial complex that can hide multi-million dollar payouts to select individuals.
I do think the other aspects of the Nordic Model would scale just fine, 5 million people is a good enough sample to see what healthcare, college, welfare all cost per capita and would apply to the USA or China.
What may not scale is the total value of corrupt dollars that can be skimmed; in the USA that is 60 times larger than in Norway. So for comparison a $17K bribe to a politician in Norway isn’t worth trying to devise a scheme to minimize a small risk of getting caught and going to jail, but in America a $1M bribe to an indvidual politician (60x larger) is worth the attention and small risk involved, and for industrial companies seeking billion dollar contracts with the US Military, the $1M bribe is a minor 0.1% “tax” on the value of the corrupt contract.
The social benefits and legitimate economic model / distribution all works fine at scale, the real problem is that corrupt motivations do not scale with population.
LikeLike
August 30, 2015 at 5:52 pm
Which leads to an interesting reversal in order to reign in corruption: Norway uses a modified version of Sainte-Laguë to assign seats to parties; and the result is 169 seats in their Parliament (roughly equivalent to our House + Senate).
For 5M people, that is about one national level politician per 30,000 citizens (which includes children). In the USA, that would mean about 10,500 members of Congress, among hundreds of parties.
I think that would be far too many to bribe, for industry, or the bribes would have to be so small that most politicians would not bother to risk it. I think it would also heavily dilute the sociopathic content of Congress.
It would not really cost taxpayers that much to have 10,500 congressman, even at $200K each it would only cost us $2.1B, and probably save us more than that in prevented corruption.
LikeLike
August 30, 2015 at 6:21 pm
I’m going to really have to think about 10,500 congressmen. Wouldn’t you have to break it down into smaller groups to get anything done? (Please, no jokes)
On the other hand, it is thinking outside the box, which often leads to amended solutions.
I also believe Mike’s point about the myth of the rugged individual deserves attention as it is now, and always has been, a huge stumbling block to real progress.
LikeLike
August 30, 2015 at 7:51 pm
Sainte-Laguë is a mathematician that devised a system for voting that works well for assigning seats with many parties voting. Norway’s Pariament has eight parties for 5M people and the system encourages the formation of parties if they can get about 0.7% of the vote they are likely to get a seat in parliament (about 35,000 people voting for the party).
Interestingly, during our Constitutional Convention, the only opinion George Washington expressed on anything was that a Congressman for every 40,000 voting men was too dilute, and at most it should be 30,000. That language did not make it into the Constitution, except that it set the minimum to 30,000 to allow for Washington’s preferred ratio.
Be it clear Washington was talking about voting men and I am talking about all citizens of any age, but even at our founding it was understood that if a Congressman represented too many people then they would be less accountable and less responsive to their voters.
At 30,000 citizens we might have 23,000 voting age adults in maybe 14,000 households. It would be much easier to inform such a group of problems with their Representative and make their Representative more accountable.
————
I don’t think a large population in Congress is a problem, I think it is a feature! Parties would have blocks, those are the subgroups. We can set a minimum of 0.5% of the population, and have less than 200 parties (probably close to 28 parties if the math in my head is right).
So individual congress members produce bills for their party to approve, they (or party leaders) collaborate with other parties, etc to build something that can be put to a vote by the full Congress.
The “feature” here is that with so many congress members and so many party leaders that polarization is dissipated. There is no single “majority” party that decides what will and will not be voted upon. Democracy rules even within Congress, as it should. (Instead, we suffer through temporary Dictatorships in the House and Senate, with one party rule decided every two years.)
Anoher feature is that corruption requires convincing about 20 times as many people to be corrupt, thus raises the price of corruption about 20 fold and the chance of political harm (due to a smaller constituency) about 20 fold, too.
I think it means representatives are far more likely to do their job, to keep a pretty good job with good pay and benefits. And I think things still get done.
LikeLike
August 31, 2015 at 4:57 pm
Trump’s a businessman who saw the “market” potential for his outrageous hatred, bigotry, racism, and misogyny, all views that his fanbase, the far right, shares with him, and he’s cashing in on it for all its worth. SMH. I don’t even want to think of him as Commander in Chief. The expression, “you’re fired” will take on a whole new meaning.
LikeLike
August 31, 2015 at 7:39 pm
“So individual congress members produce bills for their party to approve, they (or party leaders) collaborate with other parties, etc to build something that can be put to a vote by the full Congress.
The “feature” here is that with so many congress members and so many party leaders that polarization is dissipated. There is no single “majority” party that decides what will and will not be voted upon. Democracy rules even within Congress, as it should. (Instead, we suffer through temporary Dictatorships in the House and Senate, with one party rule decided every two years.)”
MM,
I think you’re moving in the right direction, but still you might be overly optimistic. If you remember this article I wrote at Jonathan Turley’s http://jonathanturley.org/2012/01/21/the-authoritarians-a-book-review-and-book/ part of what we are dealing with is that perhaps the majority of people have Authoritarian personalities and can be easily led by sociopathic leaders. These factions to would be subject to the need of many to follow the leader.
LikeLike
August 31, 2015 at 7:43 pm
Kimberly,
Following up on your comment, imagine the “You’re Fired!” guy’s power trip, with the belief that the President can order the murder of people they deem “dangerous to the country. Beyond scary, Trump is not a man to turn the other cheek to criticism.
LikeLike
August 31, 2015 at 9:48 pm
Mike: I remember that, and read up on it. But Authoritarianism is pretty promiscuous; I see it in the Green Party, in Unions, in Democrats, Republicans and Libertarians, in Vegans, in business strategy, and it is pretty rampant in frikkin’ science (of all places). Just try to tell String Theorists they are wasting their lives and careers on a fantasy, see how fast they throw down the Great Men cards. Even though the arguments against ST are numerous and compelling.
Anyway, my pet peeves at science put aside, I don’t doubt that people may be led by sociopaths. Sociopaths are what, 5% of the population? So among a group of 30,000 we’d expect 1500, and among those, about 15 highly intelligent and engaging sociopaths. But many are busy making big bucks in other pursuits, and they still won’t win all the elections: I don’t think leaders have to be sociopaths.
I’m not sure of the psychology, but I would guess sociopaths within Congress are pretty much immune to Authoritarianism.
So the argument here is just one of simple dilution of power. If it takes 20 times as many Congressmen to pass something; that is 20 times the bribery budget, and exponentially more difficult to keep a secret with 20 or 40 congressmen versus 1 or 2.
Bribers need ways to make Congressmen rich without getting caught. It is kind of easy to funnel a half million to one sitting Congressman, since they are not excluded from doing business: Just engineer a little golf-course real-estate legerdermain among your wealthy friends that makes the politician look like an astonishingly lucky speculator.
But it becomes more difficult with 20, and the bribe doesn’t scale down: Few congressman making $200K a year would be dumb enough to take a $25,000 bribe, six weeks salary. A half million maybe. $25K? They aren’t risking the cushy job. So a lot of bribery that goes on now gets priced out of the market or is prevented by the prospect of being found out because too many participants are required.
LikeLike
September 1, 2015 at 3:57 am
“I remember that, and read up on it. But Authoritarianism is pretty promiscuous; I see it in the Green Party, in Unions, in Democrats, Republicans and Libertarians, in Vegans, in business strategy, and it is pretty rampant in frikkin’ science (of all places). Just try to tell String Theorists they are wasting their lives and careers on a fantasy, see how fast they throw down the Great Men cards. Even though the arguments against ST are numerous and compelling.”
MM,
When I referred to Authoritarian personalities I just wasn’t talking about those on the political right. My experience has been that there are probably a great many on the political left as well. My own estimate is that perhaps as much as 60% of all humans have personalities that look towards authority to get their marching orders, though most are unaware of it. Many people abjure the ideas of leading and seek out those people whose leadership fits best with their own pre-judgments. As for string theory you know quite well that I’m not of a scientific mindset, while a scientific approach is where you are coming from. Therefore when agree with you that “string theory” has always seemed bizarre, I can’t have back up that thought to any where near the degree that you can.
“I’m not sure of the psychology, but I would guess sociopaths within Congress are pretty much immune to Authoritarianism.”
It is important to differentiate the sociopathic congress people, 5% works for me, from the other 95% of those in Congress. That 95% I would roughly guess contains a high number (60% ?) of authoritarian personalities.The rest are a mixed bag containing some with integrity and others who want to have a good lifestyle. Right now maintaining even that perhaps low number of elected officials with integrity is a difficult proposition given that our political system is now based on advertising, fund raising for advertising and a news media that is reluctant to present issues of substance.
I get that you;re looking at dilution of power via numbers as a way to escalate the cost of bribery, but isn’t that assuming that those with the money to make bribes are acting in a rational manner ans judging the cost effectiveness of their efforts. When it comes to people like the Koch Brothers, or Adelson, rationality goes out the window, because they are true believers, with the egos spend their almost limitless fortunes. Those worth in the billions are not constrained by issues of cost and I think they are pretty much delusional in their belief in themselves and in their own notion of their right to power.
LikeLike
September 1, 2015 at 1:06 pm
Oh. I thought everybody knew about the last 20 years of fiasco in String Theory. That’s why Sheldon Cooper on The Big Bang Theory sitcom recently quit String Theory, he became convinced he was wasting his life….
Onward! I disagree about Congress, I think both business and politics filters out people with empathy and a moral compass at each new level of competition. Sociopathy makes people more effective in a back-stabbing world, telling lies, spying, stealing, gerrymandering, denying people the vote, all of that is sociopathy at work. Win at all costs. Congress and the Senate and Cabinet seats and other big appointments are the prize. At the City Council level good people can get in. Around the Mayorship level of maybe half a million is where I think the turning point is found, and the turn is fully made around the State Governor level, with people like Chris Christie.
So I think the Congress is at least predominately sociopaths. I think Ayn Rand was a sociopath, and sociopaths seized upon her as an icon to legitimize their selfishness. I think and equal number of Democrats are sociopathic opportunists, with no problem lying to their constituents year after year on why the benefits they promise on the stump every cycle never do materialize, or at best always seem to materialize in ways to make others rich at our expense.
IMO the reason we don’t have Medicare for All in this country is not because of a few sociopaths in Congress standing in its way. They could be voted down. It is because well over half the Congress owes allegiance to only one shadow party, the wealthy elite that adopt them as pets.
———–
I think people like the Koch’s are at least hampered by dilution. But dilution might create another dynamic that might hamper them even further: It makes a communications dollar go 20 times further.
Let’s do arithmetic!
By the 1929 bill we have 435 Congressmen. We have 319M citizens with 219M Americans eligible to vote, that is 68.7%. So each Congressman represents 733K people containing 503K eligible voters.
Now if I want to run today, I need to reach 503K eligible voters somehow, and make about 10 impressions on them in order for them to even be aware of my name and party. So I need 5M impressions, at about $0.25 each, and that means $1.25M dollars to have any hope of running. I can’t meet a large percentage of them.
If my district was limited to 35K persons (and 68.7% is 24K eligible voters) then I have a fighting chance. Now I only need to make 240K impressions, at $0.25 each about $60K dollars to have a fighting chance. If I start smart I could probably finance my own campaign for $10K or so, which is what many council persons do for districts 3 or 4 times as large. Like city councilpersons it probably wouldn’t be television campaigns anymore, but yard signs, billboards, radio, direct mail, flyers, and meetings at the grade school gymnasium or similar kinds of in-person approach. This is impossible in the current environment.
——————
I think the power of money in elections is very limited. We have several examples of people spending personal fortunes to try and get elected and losing; the most severe being Meg Whitman v. Jerry Brown in California. Final election reports show she spent $178.5M to his $36.5M, and $140M of that was her own money. But she lost. 5.4M (out of 10M) people voted for Jerry Brown, so he spent an average of $3.65 per voter.
I cannot imagine any amount of spending that would make me vote for a Republican with Republican values instead of any candidate with liberal progressive (or social libertarian) values. I presume people that favor the small (and ineffective) government angle feel the same.
What money buys is legitimacy and awareness of your candidacy and policies (or pretenses about policies) amongst the people in your party. That may motivate them to vote. But, like all advertising, there is a point of vanishing returns (not just diminishing), or even negative returns. Once awareness is achieved no more minds can be changed, or at least the number is in the sub-1% and won’t move the needle. Whitman finished with 41% and Brown with 54% of the vote, I think after the first $3 each spent per voter (about $30M each) the result was baked, Brown would win. Whitman spending another $15 per voter did not convince any Democrats to become Republicans, it just kept reminding them they better get out and vote for Brown!
Which brings me back to the Koch-like. If my theory is correct, then in a district with 24K eligible voters and about 18K that would actually vote, spending $3 per ($54K) is enough to get elected if the candidacy has legs. Spending more than around $72K ($4 per) is not effective if the candidate and his policies are not viable in the district. We wouldn’t need campaign finance reform any more, the expenses would be small enough that the political field would be opened to vast numbers.
Somebody earning about $60K per year could probably afford to gamble $10K to try and get a foothold in their district (and triple their income). That is about 35% of returns. Multiply that by 20 (the income and the gamble) and the field is 130 times smaller, about 0.25% of returns, and consists of only millionaires; which is now over half of Congress.
All IMO, of course.
LikeLike
September 2, 2015 at 12:19 pm
P.S. In my last paragraph, when I say “35% of returns”, I am talking about IRS tax returns in 2014. The IRS releases data on how many returns fall into each income level.
LikeLike