As someone who lives in NZ, I don't think you have that right. Can you provide the blog?

In particular, these laws are always aimed at suppressing small businesses, because small businessmen are less dependent on the power and can overthrow it. — Linkey

In general, large business is advantageous to the government. There are many reasons, but it's easier and more efficient for the government to have the company rule over its various activities itself, and it's employees, collect taxes etc., and report to the government, then for it to govern over a whole bunch of small businesses.

So in agriculture and food production for example, the government can stipulate that the company must hire inspectors, and maintain a safe food supply, rather than having to send out a whole crew of inspectors around to all the different small businesses. The company does the inspections, but a small business couldn't afford this. It's a matter of efficiency.

Can you provide the blog? — AmadeusD

Sorry, no - it is in Russian and in Telegram.

[]

As far as I can see, the Western democracy is mostly an illusion; the Western countries are ruled by the financial aristocracy.

To be more specific, the notion that democracy ignores the external influence of power, is an illusion. But did anyone actually believe this naive concept?

To be more specific, the notion that democracy ignores the external influence of power, is an illusion. But did anyone actually believe this naive concept? — LuckyR

The public, consisting of the average people, is people's worst enemy.
One, the workforce (labor) seems to have given up on fighting for stronger economic condition. The pension plan had been eliminated by most corporations. What we're left with is compensation deferrals -- which is not a pension, but workers' own fruit of labor being set aside for their own subsidy in old age. Not everyone can afford to contribute to their own retirement accounts, at least meaningfully. And no one protested on the street when pension disappeared.

Two, we do not try to understand how our money held in banks and retirement accounts are being invested. The big money is beyond our comprehension -- we are passively providing the investment for corporations that, with their oligarchic behavior influencing government policies that benefit their wealth, uses money that eventually destroys us.

Three -- there is something to understand about living wages. The minimum wage is not a living wage. But increasing the minimum wage affects most small businesses and all other benefits that can be provided to the workers.

Four -- health insurance and affordable housing. I live in HCOL area, I just cannot understand how local governments can allow housing costs to go out of control without corresponding wages going out of control to match the housing costs.
And why is the social security administration still stuck in the old policy of not taxing all wages? Instead, the higher wages are not taxed after a certain amount.

Five -- taxation of the wealthy the size of the galaxy.

the workforce (labor) seems to have given up on fighting for stronger economic condition. — L'éléphant

It's less 'have given up' and much more "they've been defeated'. It is extremely difficult to overcome the legal barriers erected against unionization; equally difficult is attempting to organize a company when the workers are deluged by anti-union messaging and threats. Fewer and fewer workers have experienced work in an effectively unionized company.

Another barrier is cheap labor (unemployed people, immigrants--documented and not documented) are willing to work for less than the previously unionized workers were. For the newly hired striker-replacements, the lower wages paid are still a lot better than what they were getting at home south of the border.

I live in HCOL area, I just cannot understand how local governments can allow housing costs to go out of control without corresponding wages going out of control to match the housing costs. — L'éléphant

As far as I know, local governments usually do not have control over rental rates. It isn't just that they haven't tried; they can't. They have to be granted that power by their state legislature. Needless to add, property interests fight VERY hard against rent control.

For the most party, government does not have control over wages (except for their state employees). Not congress, not legislatures, not city councils lay out wage rates which companies have to pay.

Wages and rental rates are affected by labor markets and housing markets far, far more than any regulation.

we do not try to understand how our money held in banks and retirement accounts are being invested. — L'éléphant

Pretty much true. And we don't know enough to invest our own money in a complex equity markets.

The minimum wage is not a living wage. — L'éléphant

No kidding! $15k vs $90k.

The Federal Minimum Wage is absurdly low -- $7.25 per hour. That's about $15.000 per year, full time. Some states have set higher minimum wages. Minnesota's minimum wage is $11.41, almost $24,000 working full time. The minimum wage in Minneapolis is $$16.37, or a little over $34,000 a year. $34,000 might be ok for a frugal single person, but it certainly would not be much for a family of 4 (2 adults, 2 children) not matter how frugal they were. An estimated "living wage" in Minneapolis is considered to be about $43.11 per hour for a single earner supporting a family of four (2 adults, 2 children). That works out to be a little over $90,000 a year. $90k isn't luxuriant. A reasonably nice apartment for 4 people could easily cost $36,000 a year.

Five -- taxation of the wealthy the size of the galaxy. — L'éléphant

What is the size of the galaxy -- the wealth that isn't getting taxed or the state income if we taxed wealth at the formerly high rates?

As far as I can see, the Western democracy is mostly an illusion; the Western countries are ruled by the financial aristocracy. — Linkey

We aren't "ruled by the financial aristocracy"; we are ruled (so far) by civilian government. But as Marx said "The government is a committee for arranging the affairs of the bourgeoisie." So, a prime concern of the government has always been he needs and wishes of the wealthy class.

I agree with your overall sentiment, but differ on some of your example interpretations.

First, pensions were a fine concept but those huge reserves made companies targets of corporate raiders who would buy the companies, transfer the pension money away, then send (their own company) into bankruptcy. Better to have an IRA and 401K with your name on it.

Second, investing sophistication is not required. A low fee S&P 500 index fund is a well appreciated foundation of personal investing. Everyone knows someone who can understand the basics of long-term investing. Especially in the current era whereby investment advice is plentiful and free.

Third, minimum wages should only be earned by teenagers, entry level folks or those whose compensation is actually made up of tips or commissions. In other words, no one should be making minimum wages alone and raising a family.

Fourth, the influence that local government has on lowering housing costs is to loosen building restrictions (or applying other incentives) to increase supply, thereby lowering costs.

Let me continue. A common situation is when candidate A promises something ugly regarding question 1, but something good regarding question 2. Candidate B promises something good regarding question 1, but something ugly regarding question 2. So the voters do not have choice.

For example, some candidates promise to supress gays, while others promise to supress homophobes; and when these candidates change each other, nothing changes, because both parties are rather spoilers serving the financial elite. This is clealy seen in case of USA and Poland.

I agree with your premise, but would suggest that this system is better than all the others (except perhaps some forms of socialism, which are rarely successful).

Democracy is about preventing authoritarian control of a population. What the political party’s do when they get into office is not all that important, provided the democratic principle is maintained.

We have a different problem when it comes to money. Capitalism has turned toxic, big finance strips out opportunity for small players to compete. The middle classes are becoming squeezed leaving the super rich and the poor (people who are struggling to keep their heads above water). This kind of polarisation is destructive.