| haxxiy said: It's funny you look at things this way, because in South America the general feeling is that democracy could lead to a dictatorship of the majority, which in turn could lead to some for of artificial distribution of income. That's the very core of populism, and the natural consequence of the majority of people belonging to the low or middle class. Even right-wing populism is related to some form of income distribution, unless power is in the hands of hardcore technocrats who favor major companies. |
While that works short term, in the long term you usually end up with polticians who use their confiscatory powers to fatten up his allies until he can gain enough power to take over dictatorship style.
Like Mugabe for example, or Castro... or really any great "redistributive" politician who gained power.
Hugo Chavez actually being a pretty decent example in south america... he never got to the point of dictatorship, but his redistirbution found it's way in his allies pockets quite often.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/venezuela/9993238/Venezuela-the-wealth-of-Chavez-family-exposed.html
Do give him credit though in that he at least redistributed some money to the people he said he would.
Even a backlash against inequality often finds it's way creating inequality. It's sad but true. Even if you had direct voting on every issue, you'd find the smart and Charismatic tricking others into voting for things that specifically enriched them.
A change in culture is all that will change inequality, otherwise there will always be people on the top.
Let alone, that even if you pay people the same there will be economic inequality, pay my friend and I the same and i'll be richer then him in a year because he'll spend most of it on frivelous stuff that's gone after a day.
