> As if we have anything remotely resembling a "meritocratic" society, even if it was a democratic one.
It's not a threat in that sense. Income inequality has existed since the concept of income was relevant. Democracy, as viewed through economics, is part of the long march towards removing that inequality. It's less accurate to say that democracy is threatened by income inequality as it is to say that income inequality is threatened by a well-implemented democracy.
A well-implemented democracy--and I use this qualifier emphatically because I hardly consider America to be one; I barely consider Scandinavian countries well-implemented--depends on equal voice. Equal voice depends on two things: minimum thresholds of education and the strong dissemination and accessibility of information. Or shorter, understanding proposed policy and being able to talk about it.
These dependencies do not function cooperatively with income inequality. Look for people who argue that laws are overly arcane and complex precisely in order to keep lawyers in business. They have a point. Notice that tax code reform is opposed by companies making software to simplify it. Notice the sheer quantity of disillusionment among the population for the ability to do anything. Look at that iconic Tea Party sign demanding that the government leave a government program alone. Keeping income inequality in place is an important profit driver; it is rational to become a monopoly, to have full control over supply of a product, to gouge prices. The paradox of the price mechanism is that, when you subvert it, it reinforces that subversion. It only becomes rational to encourage competition when you look outside of your own self-interest.
The practice of maintaining any income inequality is, at the end of the day, kicking the feet out from underneath democracy. It's by no means a direct attack; it's just intelligent self-defense.
It's not a threat in that sense. Income inequality has existed since the concept of income was relevant. Democracy, as viewed through economics, is part of the long march towards removing that inequality. It's less accurate to say that democracy is threatened by income inequality as it is to say that income inequality is threatened by a well-implemented democracy.
A well-implemented democracy--and I use this qualifier emphatically because I hardly consider America to be one; I barely consider Scandinavian countries well-implemented--depends on equal voice. Equal voice depends on two things: minimum thresholds of education and the strong dissemination and accessibility of information. Or shorter, understanding proposed policy and being able to talk about it.
These dependencies do not function cooperatively with income inequality. Look for people who argue that laws are overly arcane and complex precisely in order to keep lawyers in business. They have a point. Notice that tax code reform is opposed by companies making software to simplify it. Notice the sheer quantity of disillusionment among the population for the ability to do anything. Look at that iconic Tea Party sign demanding that the government leave a government program alone. Keeping income inequality in place is an important profit driver; it is rational to become a monopoly, to have full control over supply of a product, to gouge prices. The paradox of the price mechanism is that, when you subvert it, it reinforces that subversion. It only becomes rational to encourage competition when you look outside of your own self-interest.
The practice of maintaining any income inequality is, at the end of the day, kicking the feet out from underneath democracy. It's by no means a direct attack; it's just intelligent self-defense.