The power of the rich

Tom Perkins' demand that the rich get more votes has provoked ire on Twitter. His critics, however, miss a point - that it wouldn't make very much difference if they did.

I say this partly because of the nature of first-past-the-post systems. The rich tend to live in wealthy areas which vote right-wing anyway. Perkins' scheme would thus create even bigger majorities in Tory or Republican seats.

But there's a bigger reason. It's that the rich don't need more votes in order to have disproportionate political influence. They already do, thanks to their control over "business confidence"; our tendency to defer to the rich and successful; the managerialist mindset which serves to justify the parasitism of the wealthy; cognitive biases which reconcile people to even unjust inequalities; and our tendency to be excessively generous to people merely by virtue of the fact they communicate with us.

You might wonder here: if the rich have so much power, why don't they exploit it even more?

Simple. It's because there are two constraints upon the power of the rich, which would exist regardless of how many votes they had.

One is efficiency. You don't have to believe in theories about the inefficiency of existing inequalities to see that, beyond some point, inequality would be harmful for the rich. For example, if workers are so badly paid that they are unhealthy or unmotivated, the rich would suffer as output and profits fall. Similarly, the lack of a welfare state would cause greater volatility and lower labour supply.

The other is simply the threat of a political backlash. Louis XVI and Nicholas II did not benefit for long from high inequality.

A successful parasite needs a healthy host. The smarter parasites know this.

In light of all this, why are so many so outraged by Perkins' comments? It's becauser he's challenging the principle of formal equality, as expressed in "one person, one vote." Formal equality, however, is very different from substantial equality. 

Comments

[Luke]

What is the cognitive bias that causes someone with some ability in one area to think he is the best person to redesign voting systems in a successful and relatively well governed democracy?

[bill40]

I quite agree the rich don't need more votes, in fact they don't need any. The influence they wield through lobbying is completely outweighs any number of votes. It has got to the point now that if they are breaking the law they simply have them changed until they're not.

[Dave Timoney]

The "more votes for the rich" demand is just troll-bait for a more profound argument, which is that the poor should have fewer. Perkins seeks to ties votes (power) to tax (responsibility): no representation without taxation.

As such, the appeal is not to billionaires but to the middling sort who believe that their tax is being wasted by White Dee et al. While we laugh at the nutjob, de facto disenfranchisment (discriminatory voter registration "reforms" etc) proceeds apace.

[theOnlySanePersonOnPlanetEarth]

Spot on Arse to Elbow,

To take the trolling further we should be given the choice between paying tax and having the vote. The more tax as a % of your income you pay the more votes you get. If you pay no tax you get no votes.

[Keith]

As low income people pay a high percentage of their income in VAT and other indirect taxes and fees it is they who should have more votes and Billionaires none.

[Trash, the disreputable lion]

"In light of all this, why are so many so outraged by Perkins' comments?"

Have you considered the possibility that it might be because Twitter users are notoriously capable of getting massively angry about almost anything - the more trivial the better?

[rogerh]

Tapeworms are nice people too, stand up for tapeworms. The French took the anti-parasitical medicine some time back, the effects were pretty dire and now - well things are pretty much back to how they were - reinfected. The Swedes and the Dutch seem to have controlled the influence of 'the rich' but both are pretty small economies.

We seem to shape our economy on the American model which if the analogy holds requires that society needs a hearty infection in order to be 'successful'. Most Americans look pretty good on their economic diet if not their nutritional diet. As you say, we adhere to an illusion of equality and don't like that illusion disturbed because it makes us hate ourselves - one way or the other. Perhaps many people are too stupid to have a vote - so we fix the system so they don't bother - much less disturbing as AtoE infers.

[nigel simmons]

BROKEN BRITISH POLITICS –THE IMMORAL IS INDEFENSIBLE
David Cameron has denied that benefit cuts are plunging people into poverty, saying they actually give people "hope".
Considering Cameron is supposed to be Educated how can you reverse an immoral act by calling it moral . Surely the man must engage his brain before opening his mouth in future .How can he condone Atos deaths ,Poverty .Homelessness ,Food Banks ,Re-allocation through Bedroom Tax ,Benefit Sanctions ,Liverpool Care Pathway and Privatisation of Vital Services and call them Hope .
The number of Suicides caused by these unnecessary so called Austerity Measures are mounting. Cameron is Persecuting the Poorest to appease his Money Masters by clearing the Deficit in favour of a Quality of Life ,this is indefensible .
When Materialism overrides a whole Social Structure to such a destructive state then it is time to either give up Politics and readdress one’s own values or at least tell the truth of why you engage in such Draconian Policies .
http://brokenbritishpolitics.simplesite.com