Who is watching the TV stations, reading the newspapers, and clicking on the advertising? All these things are driven primarily by profit, and show the information that generates the most of it. How many people want to read quality well researched, well written political journalism, vs. heavily biased, low data information that we are mostly exposed to? If the public prefers dumbed down biased news, that's what they will get. Just like with everything else. Auto corporations are not secretly trying to destroy the environment by making giant inefficient cars, they are simply making what sells.
But that abdicates any responsibility that corporations or CEOs should have, and that's not OK with me. It's not as simple as saying 'people want what they want and corps don't change that' because new products change that, clever marketing changes that, influence changes that. Obviously people are more than blank receivers of company's sludge, yet at the same time there's a reason things like advertising, paid editorial content, etc, are effective in changing people's behaviour - because the population does not have a defined set of desires, their desires are open to flux, influence and change.
And if a company can change people's desires, than a company has a responsibility to be ethical with their intentions.
The true power of the wealthy lies in the fact that our government as it is today, exposes various levers the wealthy can pull to give themselves *legal* advantages. Need a lower tax for your industry? Need heavier regulations to create an unfair burden on smaller competitors? Want to trash an area because it is more profitable but need permission? Lobby the government. Give money to candidates. Etc.
I would agree that the government has a role in decoupling wealth and spending from the political process, but that doesn't invalidate my claim that wealth leads to increased power. In fact it supports that claim, you're just laying the blame somewhere else.
You might look at it and go "well, the problem is that these people have so much money they can buy their way into government". I look at it and say "why does the government have these levers to begin with?".
Good question, government and wealth are good bedfellows, definitely a two way street. So many 'ministers of planning' get cushy jobs in real estate development when they quit, so many businesses bribe individuals here and in the US - they are both at fault and wealth inequality opens this are of wrongdoing even further.
If the government would not be involved in things that can be influenced with money, then money wouldn't influence them. For example, if the tax code for corporations included no deductions/credits/subsidies of any kind and simply had a rate of X%, how do you cheat that? If the government does not regulate your industry, how do you gain an unfair regulatory advantage? The more government you have, the more levers are exposed, the more they can be pulled by the wealthy. Go after the levers, not the money, if you are unhappy with the system.
The government can't not be involved in money. A huge part of its role is the allocation of money, the funding of projects, the green-lighting of development, zoning, etc, etc, even things that aren't directly involving money changing hands still involve the accumulation or spending of money. Or both!
How do you gain unfair regulatory advantage? Who knows! But that's not what I'm talking about because it's too narrow, it's too specific, it's the trees and I'm talking about the forest. Setting aside government completely for a hypothetical wealth still leads to increased power, it's inevitable. Better health outcomes, better education, substantially better connections, less mental health problems, etc - these all accumulate daily to provide huge advantages for wealthy people of non-wealthy (working poor, below poverty line, whatever). Some degree of inequality is inevitable, but I'm uncomfortable with the growing gap between rich and poor, I don't think it bodes well because fewer people will be subject to these benefits of improved wealth like they were in the 20th century.
