There is a new reason to be comfortable with great inequality in income caused by commerce.
The reason I usually give is that our income inequality is a byproduct of natural processes. Nature offers far greater inequality than we can imagine. For every Sequoia, there are 1000 bushes and 1 million blades of grass. For every elephant or whale there are 1000 dog size animals and millions of insects. ‘Nature does it’ has always been an argument to justify human phenomena.
My new argument has to do with the need for the commercial world to deal effectively with the world of politics.
In the past year Google has successfully influenced the Department of Justice and the subsidiary antitrust department. Google has received several favorable rulings necessary for the search giant to thrive. On the other hand AT&T a telecom giant has received unfavorable rulings that cancelled a major merger with T-Mobile.
The reason is straightforward. The founders of Google have billions of personal dollars which they can easily spend on political campaigns. They get their money back handily because they are large shareholders in their own company.
The opposite is true for the CEO of AT&T. He only gets a CEO salary and bonuses and can only give a very small amount of personal money to the political world. Even if he gave a large amount of his own money he doesn't own enough shares of his company to pay him back his investment.
For me this is a very powerful argument in favor of supporting the super rich.
They can appropriately influence political donations to benefit their corporations. Anyone who doesn't understand politics will not understand the need for corporations to protect their interests and the interests of their employees.
The reason I usually give is that our income inequality is a byproduct of natural processes. Nature offers far greater inequality than we can imagine. For every Sequoia, there are 1000 bushes and 1 million blades of grass. For every elephant or whale there are 1000 dog size animals and millions of insects. ‘Nature does it’ has always been an argument to justify human phenomena.
In the past year Google has successfully influenced the Department of Justice and the subsidiary antitrust department. Google has received several favorable rulings necessary for the search giant to thrive. On the other hand AT&T a telecom giant has received unfavorable rulings that cancelled a major merger with T-Mobile.
The reason is straightforward. The founders of Google have billions of personal dollars which they can easily spend on political campaigns. They get their money back handily because they are large shareholders in their own company.
The opposite is true for the CEO of AT&T. He only gets a CEO salary and bonuses and can only give a very small amount of personal money to the political world. Even if he gave a large amount of his own money he doesn't own enough shares of his company to pay him back his investment.
For me this is a very powerful argument in favor of supporting the super rich.
They can appropriately influence political donations to benefit their corporations. Anyone who doesn't understand politics will not understand the need for corporations to protect their interests and the interests of their employees.