Bad for Democracy Puns

I am not an economist so I would love to hear others take on this.

There's been a lot of economic growth in the past 20 years, but the money has gone disproportionately to the top. This report from the federal reserve I feel like is a good and unbiased representation of that statement. The graphs are fun (and slightly depressing imo) to play with, but I'll lay out the total wealth numbers from start (Q3 1989) to finish (Q1 2019).

So my first claim is that the past 20 years growth has been poor for the bottom half of Americans. Out of the total growth the bottom half only got a cut of 0.692%.

My second claim is that this disproportion is already worrisome, but is especially so if the trend continues. The market is increasingly valuing laborers less and less, and while the projections are debatable the fact that automation will destroy jobs (and has been doing so) is not. Also as money gap keeps getting bigger, the power gap increases as well. As opposed to a functioning democracy, politicians tend to care more about the interests of those with money and less about individual voter. As few people at the top control more and more resources they become more and more powerful in essence creating a farce out of our democracy. There's a ton of other stuff I believe this is tied to: crime, mental health, suicide, standard of living, student loans, etc.

Overall I'm amazed that I haven't heard more about this specific report in the news, and am partially wondering if I'm interpreting it wrong. If I am interpreting it correctly I feel like anyone looking to preserve a democracy and a decent standard of living should be concerned. Maybe I'm too doom and gloom... CMV.

In recent years we've seen some of the worst division in the US after the election of Trump, with each side firmly (and many times angrily) supporting their own stance. There seems to be a huge amount of bad blood between each camp

The way that elections work causes leaders to pit themselves against the other at all costs, such that they hate the other camp to the extent that people instantly change attitudes upon knowing someone they meet is a ______ supporter.

This is especially obvious in recent times due to the proliferation of privately owned news stations that cater to each camp, foreign influence etc

Does democracy weaken the unity of a country? If so how can a country prevent that from happening?

See this reddit thread?

This is the most prominence that any voice speaking in favor of Louis gets.

If you want to discuss Louis on television, or on a big-budget website of any kind, only anti-Louis opinions are permitted.

If you say the truth that he got consent from all the women and that the NYT lied when they said "misconduct" (falsely implying that Louis violated any existing rules) it's a little bit like saying "Tiananmen square massacre" on Chinese TV. You won't be invited back, and your employer will be ordered to fire you.

Tell those truths, which at least 70 of Americans believe (all Republicans plus intelligent Demicrats are inherently with Louis) and you're banished from TV.

Is that better than democracy? I'm so old, I remember when different media outlets permitted divergent opinions.

Edit: This should worry you even if you are convinced that the media didn't go far enough in attacking Louis.

It's the total absence of debate on the topic, not the particular stance adopted.

For example, if the media completely agreed with me and banned the anti-Louis side from talking, that would be equally terrible.

It's not about the specific opinion.

I have problems with the two-party system we use in the USA.

My main one is that I think the system simply doesn't represent the people nearly as well as a multi-party system would. With third parties made irrelevant by the system in most elections, at least nationally, a lot of voices are drowned out. A large portion of Americans identify as independents, and while they can do their best to make their voice heard and attempt to sway politicians on both sides, their options still ultimately consist of only democrats and republicans, who generally seem to follow party lines pretty strictly, especially with growing partisanship. It's rare to see a republican/democrat break with the party unless re-election demands it. A democrat/republican politician may have a more or less extreme version of the view in the party's platform, but they still share the same idea. Yet even if these independent voters do not align with all the democratic or republican ideals, they will still likely end up picking the lesser of two evils, so that the greater of the two evils does not win. If you like some republican ideas and some democratic ideas, there is no candidate for you, and under our system no competitive third party can fill this gap. Liberal conservatives and conservative liberals are a dying breed in our system, which further contributes to polarization of politics. If a voice does not exist for the moderates, you are left with two loud voices who completely oppose and begin to demonize each other.

Even for non-moderates, the representation is lacking. If you are far left of the democratic party or far-right of the republican party, you can still be left voting to prevent a candidate from winning, as opposed to voting for a candidate you actually like, as shown by the 2016 election.

The independents who do not completely align with one of the two parties often can't change it from within because they are often locked out of the primary system, and changing it from the outside is a daunting task when all the power lies with the two parties.

A system that promotes other competitive parties would promote diversity of thought, and reduce polarization. If people more options, and options they viewed as better than the party they currently vote with, I believe people would be more inclined to vote in general. Not only that, they would be able to vote for candidates who actually represent them and not just to keep the other side from winning.

> *This is a foot

(I'm not running this at a tournament). Does anyone have any cards that say democracy hurts the economy?

Edit: More specifically, I'm saying that non-democratic governments can boost their economy more easily because they have no opposition from the people

A colleague of mine made the following claim, and I believed it was interesting:

"The Greeks flourished with philosophical schools because they did not view religion as a source of morality or as a model for society, and instead needed to create their own, as their gods were immortal tyrants by nature and could not have regime changes naturally. This includes both the fundamental of human life of a man inheriting his fathers place, if that man being a farmer or a king, and in terms of political power eventually, in the worst cases, a regime must change eventually once it's perpetuaters die. The taking of the reigns of power from elder to youth is a cornerstone of human society and peaceful and just succession, even if unwarranted, is a cornerstone of a secure society. However, the gods had no need for heirs in any sense of the word and often behaved tyrannically in myths and legends and acted in ways most greeks would consider unjust, such as Circe sleeping with Odysseus or Zeus and his divine infidelity and patricide. Accordingly, in the complexity of Greek life during the relevant periods, philosophers filled the void where later societies organized religions would later fill in terms of providing proper guidance to the masses."

Now I understand that quite a bit of this is questionable (this speech was given while inebriated) but the title question itself seems rather interesting as a whole.

..by 'good' and 'bad' I mean guarantees closer to equal representation in government for each citizen.