Why shouldn't capitalism be better regulated?

[Dragonlady]

i built a set of skills...marketable skills....which translated for me into a really good salary for a really long time

i dont know what the answer is for "everyone"

what i have told my family...my daughters, my nephews and nieces....is that you have to have skills....skills beyond the norm

one of my daughters is a nanny....not the career path i would have chosen, but she loves her job....but what separates her from so many others, is her degree and her ability to converse in five languages....she is certified to teach, and so she has not had any difficulty finding jobs when one ends

doesnt matter your field, or area....be one of the BEST in it....learn more about it than the next 98% of the people.....that will always keep you employed and at really good wages

i cant control everything....i can only control my little part of the world....same advice i give to my family and my kids

I don't think there is a "one size fits all" answer. In general, your personal strategy is a good one, on a personal basis. It's essentially the same way I managed my carreer, throughout, I was almost never unemployed, unless by choice. I have always been offered any job I wanted, and been well compensated for my work.

As a strategy for employment law, it's a total bust, because it ignores the reality that only one person can be "the best", and everybody else needs to be fairly compensated for their labours. Low skilled workers have the least bargaining power of anyone because far more low skill workers than there are jobs and they're so grateful to have work. That's how we get "french fry managers" working 60 hour weeks with no overtime.

I'm 70 years old and have been retired with a fully indexed pension for the past 4 years. I recently had dinner with my youngest daughter - 29 years old, married, SAH Mom to two young children, who is now shopping for first house. At the same age, I had been separated from my husband for 2 years, and my children were 4 and 6, and I was living in my second house, and I was one of the first female bank managers in Canada. My $16,500 salary at the time bought me the following: a 10 year old, 3 bedroom, 2 bath, 1350 sq. foot home, with a partially finished basement, on a fully landscaped lot, in a good neighbourhood $325. P&I per month. In Housekeeper and child care - $200 per month, new Nissar front wheel drive compact car $100 per month, plus insurance under $100 per month.

I decided to do price comparison using today's numbers. My salary as a Junior Bank Manager under $35,000 per year. It's doubled, which sounds like a lot more money, until we start looking at what has happened to my costs. The house I paid $45,000 for is now $600,000 for the same house in the same small city, where I lived at the time. We paid 30% down - $13,500. Today, we'd need $180,000 for a 30% down payment, and even with the 3% interest rates, versus the 12% that I paid, my payments are now $1200 a month, P&I. My Housekeeper would now want $400 - per week. My Nissan - $400 per month, my insurance - $300. Net take home pay $2,200 per month. Expenses - what cost less than half my takehome pay in 1978, cost $3100 per month - more that 33% more than I can earn today.

I would still have the same work, the same level of responsibility, but the job of junior bank manager, will no longer come close to supporting the same lifestyle it provided to me in the late 1970's. The bank I used to work for, continues to post record profits each year.

 

[phattonez]

i built a set of skills...marketable skills....which translated for me into a really good salary for a really long time

i dont know what the answer is for "everyone"

what i have told my family...my daughters, my nephews and nieces....is that you have to have skills....skills beyond the norm

one of my daughters is a nanny....not the career path i would have chosen, but she loves her job....but what separates her from so many others, is her degree and her ability to converse in five languages....she is certified to teach, and so she has not had any difficulty finding jobs when one ends

doesnt matter your field, or area....be one of the BEST in it....learn more about it than the next 98% of the people.....that will always keep you employed and at really good wages

i cant control everything....i can only control my little part of the world....same advice i give to my family and my kids

You cannot have a society where everyone has skills beyond the norm. Then by definition everyone would be the norm, and we'd have the same problem.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

of course if it was moronic you would not be so afraid to present evidence. What did the liberal learn from his fear?

Lots of people have presented evidence to you, in response to the same moronic tripe you've posted in dozens of threads.

You just never pay any attention to it.

 

[prometeus]

doesnt matter your field, or area....be one of the BEST in it....learn more about it than the next 98% of the people...

That is great advice, it is what I have been teaching also to my children and family and whoever listens. Sadly though, there are far too many children out there who, for any number of reasons, do not get such good advice.

 

[Dragonlady]

Mostly false. The times before the Great Depression were called the "Roaring Twenties" for a reason. The economy boomed but far too many stocks were bought or sold on margin with a very low margin requirement. A market downturn with resultant margin calls snowballed rapidly and the rest is history. The poverty and miserable wages followed.
"
Why in God's name do you think income growth should be equivalent across all percentiles? You graphs illustrate the better trained, more skilled and experienced workers fair better when it comes to income - is that a big surprise? Burger fillers and toilet scrubbers aren't going to command the wages a brain surgeon or web application developer does.

Like the Housing Bubble, the Roaring Twenties were built on loose credit, with no collateral to back up the values. It was all a house of cards built on credit. That's not an economic boom, that's an abuse of credit. The poverty and miserable wages were already there. The Depression made them worse. Just as Conservatives fail to mention that Reagan's policies doubled poverty in America, so any discussions of the economic booms created in the 1920's, the 1980's, and the 2000's, needs to look at the economic factors underpinning them. That's why there were so many restrictions on credit after 1929, and why, there was another crash a few years after those restrictions were lifted in 1999.

And yes, if management gets a 10% raise, so should the workers. They're the ones who are actually making the products that make the money. They should get the first raises because if your company is successful, it's because you have good workers to go along with your good ideas - regardless of the level of skill required to do the job.

Every time I have an economic discussion with conservatives, their solution is always the same: go back to school, get an education, save your money, start your own business, and achieve the American Dream. This isn't a solution. It doesn't even acknowledge the problem. Telling people to raise themselves up to the top 10% isn't a solution, because 40% of the population is still not making enough money to live on, and requires social assistance to put a roof over their heads and food on the table.

There will always be the 1%, and those people will only ever be 1% of the population. Your policies are tax and employment policies are working really well for them, but in order for your country to thrive, your economic policies have to work for 100% of the population. Not just the wealthy.

Everybody needs enough money to put a roof over their heads, and food on the table. Conservatives want to do it by "earned income credits", which shifts the burden of providing a living wage from employers, to the taxpayers. Liberals want the employers, many of which are among the most profitable companies in America, and all of whom got a HUGE tax cut just last year, which they then used to buy back shares and increase their wealth, to pay their own damn workers. This is a move that the right vociferously opposes.

Somebody posted a link upthread, to a liberterian think tank report, which they claimed proved that minimum wage increases cost jobs. The problem is that the methodology used in university study which underpinned the report, had already been debunked as deeply flawed. For this reason. They counted all jobs paying $15 or less as their base starting number. They had X workers doing Y hours at the minimum wage, plus all of the hours worked by people who were making $15.00 per hour or less, but more than minimum wage, as their starting point. Their conclusion was that were substanially fewer workers and substantially fewer hours being worked at $15 an hour was absolutely correct, but their conclusion that this proved that meant employers cut jobs or hours was not. In reality, the people who were already making more than the minimum wage, also got raises, so that all low wage workers received raises. Of course, the number of $15 an hour jobs went down, because only the minimum wage jobs are now paying $15. More the half the workers they included in their initial numbers got raises and were no longer included. The jobs that paid over minimum wage but below $15, were still paying above $20 an hour, so all of those jobs and those hours, which were counted in the base numbers, were no longer counted.

Figures never lie, but liars often figure.

 

[Integrityrespec]

We have FIRE regulations for a reason, yes?
Fire can be a useful tool, because it can warm your home, forge your steel and iron, cook your food, etc.
It can also burn down entire towns if left unchecked.

Capitalism is a lot like FIRE. Left unregulated and unchecked, it can become predatory and very damaging, and it can unearth some pretty awful unintended consequences. And yet when properly harnessed, capitalism can lift entire generations out of poverty, stimulate innovation and launch entirely new industries. Capitalism has demonstrated the capability to serve as a useful and rewarding tool to serve the middle class if it operates under the right kind of regulation.

So this thread is an effort to explore suggestions and ideas on how to properly regulate capitalism to do just that.

Capitalism is regulated. How much is the question. Over regulation has proven to be a cause for economic downturn. So finding the correct amount is tricky. Democrats like to over regulate, they think they know more than business people on how to run the business. Sure they do because the government is so successful at making money. Oh, yeah they don't make money, they take money and waste it.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Capitalism is the strenght of the greatest nation on earth. It is why folks like Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Barrack Obama, Kamala Harris and almost Elizabeth Warren are millionaires. Funny how those that hate capitalism are the ones getting rich.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

Capitalism is the strenght of the greatest nation on earth. It is why folks like Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Barrack Obama, Kamala Harris and almost Elizabeth Warren are millionaires. Funny how those that hate capitalism are the ones getting rich.

Can you find a direct quote from any current or former presidents/congresspeople who literally say they "hate capitalism?" Post the link.

If not, pipe down and go back to the kiddie table.

 

[Bullseye]

Like the Housing Bubble, the Roaring Twenties were built on loose credit, with no collateral to back up the values. It was all a house of cards built on credit. That's not an economic boom, that's an abuse of credit. The poverty and miserable wages were already there. The Depression made them worse. Just as Conservatives fail to mention that Reagan's policies doubled poverty in America, so any discussions of the economic booms created in the 1920's, the 1980's, and the 2000's, needs to look at the economic factors underpinning them. That's why there were so many restrictions on credit after 1929, and why, there was another crash a few years after those restrictions were lifted in 1999.

And yes, if management gets a 10% raise, so should the workers. They're the ones who are actually making the products that make the money. They should get the first raises because if your company is successful, it's because you have good workers to go along with your good ideas - regardless of the level of skill required to do the job.

Every time I have an economic discussion with conservatives, their solution is always the same: go back to school, get an education, save your money, start your own business, and achieve the American Dream. This isn't a solution. It doesn't even acknowledge the problem. Telling people to raise themselves up to the top 10% isn't a solution, because 40% of the population is still not making enough money to live on, and requires social assistance to put a roof over their heads and food on the table.

There will always be the 1%, and those people will only ever be 1% of the population. Your policies are tax and employment policies are working really well for them, but in order for your country to thrive, your economic policies have to work for 100% of the population. Not just the wealthy.

Everybody needs enough money to put a roof over their heads, and food on the table. Conservatives want to do it by "earned income credits", which shifts the burden of providing a living wage from employers, to the taxpayers. Liberals want the employers, many of which are among the most profitable companies in America, and all of whom got a HUGE tax cut just last year, which they then used to buy back shares and increase their wealth, to pay their own damn workers. This is a move that the right vociferously opposes.

Somebody posted a link upthread, to a liberterian think tank report, which they claimed proved that minimum wage increases cost jobs. The problem is that the methodology used in university study which underpinned the report, had already been debunked as deeply flawed. For this reason. They counted all jobs paying $15 or less as their base starting number. They had X workers doing Y hours at the minimum wage, plus all of the hours worked by people who were making $15.00 per hour or less, but more than minimum wage, as their starting point. Their conclusion was that were substanially fewer workers and substantially fewer hours being worked at $15 an hour was absolutely correct, but their conclusion that this proved that meant employers cut jobs or hours was not. In reality, the people who were already making more than the minimum wage, also got raises, so that all low wage workers received raises. Of course, the number of $15 an hour jobs went down, because only the minimum wage jobs are now paying $15. More the half the workers they included in their initial numbers got raises and were no longer included. The jobs that paid over minimum wage but below $15, were still paying above $20 an hour, so all of those jobs and those hours, which were counted in the base numbers, were no longer counted.

Figures never lie, but liars often figure.

An appropriate ending to your wall of words. Facts often get in the way of liberal ideology. Government firing the money cannons indiscriminately, ala liberal thought, doesn't work.

 

[iguanaman]

of course not liberal taxes and regulations sent all the jobs to China. Wages are sky rocketing in China! Ever wonder why? You have learned this 43 times .Shall we go for 44?

Greed sent the jobs to China and the CEO salaries reflect that greed. Reagan told the corporate executives that they owed nothing to their workers. The Chinese Govt. sets the wages in China and they know higher wages for workers mean more spending in the economy and it is working. GM sells more cars in China than the US now. Their current boom mirrors ours in the 50's and 60's. They are using postwar America as their model for an economy that gives the people what they want so they can stay in power.

 

[jaeger19]

Greed sent the jobs to China and the CEO salaries reflect that greed. Reagan told the corporate executives that they owed nothing to their workers. The Chinese Govt. sets the wages in China and they know higher wages for workers mean more spending in the economy and it is working. GM sells more cars in China than the US now. Their current boom mirrors ours in the 50's and 60's. They are using postwar America as their model for an economy that gives the people what they want so they can stay in power.

BWAHHHHH..... you really are going to claim that the Chinese are using post war America as their model?

That's funny!!!.

 

[iguanaman]

BWAHHHHH..... you really are going to claim that the Chinese are using post war America as their model?

That's funny!!!.

They are building a massive "interstate" highway system, a space program with a moon shot, and have the fastest growing middle class in the world. Sound familiar?

 

[jaeger19]

They are building a massive "interstate" highway system, a space program with a moon shot, and have the fastest growing middle class in the world. Sound familiar?

Seriously that's funny.

Shall we compare unionization? You know that private unions are illegal in China right?

What about workers and free speech..

Oh wait:

n March of 2016, eight workers were sentenced to up to eight months in prison just for protesting their low wages in public. They were charged with the crime of “severely obstructing social-administrative order.”

Come on man...

 

[iguanaman]

Seriously that's funny.

Shall we compare unionization? You know that private unions are illegal in China right?

What about workers and free speech..

Oh wait:


Come on man...

Like I said, the Govt. controls the wages, no need for unions. I did not say they were a free democracy or that we should emulate their dictatorship but the govt. has decided that making the people happy by reproducing our best decades is how to stay in power. They are raising millions out of poverty and the Chinese have more to spend every year.
BTW How many workers are still unionized here? Who is protecting the rights of most workers in the U.S. Nobody that's who. We need to deal with that fast. I like the 3 sided union negotiations they have in Germany where the union, the company and the Govt. negotiate together. The govt. makes sure BOTH sides get an equitable deal.

 

[jaeger19]

Like I said, the Govt. controls the wages, no need for unions. I did not say they were a democracy or that we should emulate their dictatorship but the govt. has decided that making the people happy by reproducing our best decades is how to stay in power. They are raising millions out of poverty and the Chinese have more to spend every year.
BTW How many workers are still unionized here? Who is protecting the rights of most workers in the U.S. Nobody that's who.

Bingo.... you need to look at your own post.. you just said.. the government controls wages.. so no unions (by the way.. the government is what keeps wages down in china.. not up in an truly American free market the wages would be much much higher)

they are not a democracy but an authoritarian government.

They are NOT in any way "reproducing our best decades"... you just showed us that.

By the way about 14 million are unionized. And who is protecting the rights of most workers in the US? The US government.. and the laws that protect everything from workplace safety.. to the hours one can work.. the age which one can work..and so forth.

Dude.. before saying anything more.. I think you should do more research when it comes to the rights of Chinese workers.. versus the rights of US workers. And not just whats on paper..but what really happens in china.

 

[iguanaman]

Bingo.... you need to look at your own post.. you just said.. the government controls wages.. so no unions (by the way.. the government is what keeps wages down in china.. not up in an truly American free market the wages would be much much higher)

they are not a democracy but an authoritarian government.

They are NOT in any way "reproducing our best decades"... you just showed us that.

By the way about 14 million are unionized. And who is protecting the rights of most workers in the US? The US government.. and the laws that protect everything from workplace safety.. to the hours one can work.. the age which one can work..and so forth.

Dude.. before saying anything more.. I think you should do more research when it comes to the rights of Chinese workers.. versus the rights of US workers. And not just whats on paper..but what really happens in china.

Since GM sells more cars in China I don't think wages are that low. In fact someone here just said wages are going up faster in China than here. Was it you?

China Wage Levels Equal To Or Surpass Parts Of Europe

 

[James972]

what really happens in china.

what really happens is 8% growth for 40 years straight, the fastest wage and standard of living growth in human history, and all thanks to Republican capitalism.
Do the liberal understand these basics now?

 

[James972]

Who is protecting the rights of most workers in the U.S. Nobody that's who.

Republican capitalism would protect them but liberals are killing our workers by shipping their jobs to China and opening the borders to 30 million illegal competitors. IF a Democrat wins in 2020 you have open borders and wages cut in half by the enemies of labor. Liberals will lack the IQ to understand these simple concepts so our workers must suffer what they must.

 

[Dragonlady]

They are building a massive "interstate" highway system, a space program with a moon shot, and have the fastest growing middle class in the world. Sound familiar?

More importantly, they're investing heavily in infrastructure in Africa, South and Central America, to build and establish "Silk Road" trading routes for their products., and using foreign aid to "****hole countries", just like America did in building their trading ties with Europe, Africa, Central and South America over the years. While the British built the Suez Canal, the US built the Panama Canal, so that trade from coming from Asia, Africa, or the Americas, didn't have to make the very long and dangerous trip around Cape Horn, to get from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and vice versa. China is awash in cash from all their trade surpluses, so American dollars are being used to finance Chinese developments around the world.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

This is the strategy most modelled on how the USA established and built it's wealth and power over the decades. Trump is cancelling all foreign aid, and pulling back on foreign embassies and staff aroung the world. Everywhere that the USA has abandoned its allies, cancelled trade treaties, and foreign aid, China has come in to fill the void.

China is now the lead partner in the Trans Pacific Partnership. Trump tried to get back in and was rebuffed, utterly. China is now buying soy beans from Mexico and Argentina, after Trump slapped tariff's on US goods and the Chinese stopped buying American soy beans. Even if Trump gets a new trade deal with China, those markets are now lost to American farmers.

The EU has signed the largest trade deal in history with Japan. Canada and Mexico are parties to the TPP. Additionally, Justin Trudeau negotiated and signed a new trade deal with the EU. The net result is that both Canada and Mexico are less reliant on trade with the US. And please note that since Trump started his idiotic trade wars, the American trade surplus with Canada, which was $11 billion dollars when Trump slapped tariffs on Canada, is now less than $3 billion. Trump made things worse.

In 2016 under President Obama, the US trade deficit with China was $346.7 billion. In 2018 under President Trump, declaring trade wars are easy to win, and after multiple rounds of tariffs, the US trade deficit with China was $419.5 billion. Trump made things worse.

Foreign Trade - U.S. Trade with China

Exports to Europe have been cut in half under Trump:

Foreign Trade - U.S. Trade with European Union

Everything Trump touches, dies.

 

[iguanaman]

Republican capitalism would protect them but liberals are killing our workers by shipping their jobs to China and opening the borders to 30 million illegal competitors. IF a Democrat wins in 2020 you have open borders and wages cut in half by the enemies of labor. Liberals will lack the IQ to understand these simple concepts so our workers must suffer what they must.

LOL "Republican capitalism" has frozen most workers wages for 40 years slowing growth and concentrating wealth in the 1%. Trump has made things even worse by weakening our alliances, starting a trade war with the world and abdicating the U.S's role as leader of the free world. Everything he touches turns to s**t. Our allies have chosen to wait it out until 2020 in the hope that sanity will return our only hope of regaining what we have lost is to boot Trump out.

 

[bearcat22]

;
Well, interesting you would use the fire analogy.

I am no scholar, but here is what I think I know:

Unless I am mistaken, long before there was any such thing as a tax funded fire department, there were PRIVATE fire companies in Colonial America.
These operated as insurance companies. You paid a fee, and they put a placard on the front of your house.

If your house caught on fire, and you had the insurance placard, the firemen would arrive and serve you.
If you had no membership, your house burned down.

None other than Benjamin Franklin belonged to one of these Private Fire Companies.

It was also common and possible for persons to use free choice to organize and participate in Volunteer Fire Companies at their own expense.

If your neighbor was poor or negligent and did not have fire insurance of this type, his building catching on
fire posed a risk to you; it could spread.

You then had the freedom to move away from this person. You had the freedom to give them fire insurance with your own money. You had the freedoom to sue them if their fire caused you any harm: negligence is a tort.

One of the few legitimate purposes of government is to ensure that no individual initiates the use of force against another.
Extorting money from someone via taxes so that you can have fire protection (or anything else) that you can't personally afford is criminal.

I reject the premise of your original post / question.
There never has been completely unregulated capitalism.
The abuses you refer to came about as a direct result of a system that allows corrupt people to bribe politicians
to create regulations that favor the corrupt. These restrictions made possible all the horrors you decry. A completely free market
and a completely free populace always correct corrupt practices naturally.

In a completely unregulated economy, a monopoly (for example) is unsutainable. The more wealthy the monopoly becomes, the greater the financial incentive there is to compete with it and topple it with a better product or service. It is only regulation that prevents this from happening, corrupt misguided laws.

Regulation of business arose because of two competing Cannibal Tribes: one wished to use huge wealth to buy political power. The other wished to bamboozle the huge unwashed masses to buy votes, political power. Both ways are inherently evil.

Individual freedom comes with individual responsibility. Since most persons are of very low intelligence, skill, talent and worth, they flail about in desperation for ways to improve their condition. They want to keep the freedom, and evade the responsibilty.
They then turn to thugs (elected politicians and cops/ IRS et. al.) to extort money from those individuals who ARE capable, via taxation.

Ironically, capitalism, and the capable individuals producing things, are the only reason most people enjoy anything in life.
If you took the average person and isolated them, could they invent a light bulb to dissipate the darkness?
No. They would die in freezing cold darkness from starvation and disease very quickly.

This is why you see Republicans in favor of regulating business-----they want to keep it corrupt. A free market does not need
to bribe anyone for favors or contracts or regulations.

As I say, I am no scholar. I am simply a poor ignorant drop out. You might wish to carefully read the book "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal".

Thank you.





..

 

[enderpotato00]

Obviously wrong. Socialism (heavy regulation) becomes predatory and kills 10's of millions. Capitalism left unregulated is self-correcting
by compassion. Notice how the liberal so thoroughly accepted his brain washing and gets it perfectly backward but has no idea he has been perfectly manipulated. Astounding!!

Capitalism is the best system, but if completely unregulated can cause problems too.

 

[bearcat22]

Capitalism is the best system, but if completely unregulated can cause problems too.

Yes, left unregulated, problems occur. Yet without regulations, corrections happen.

You don't like that product, don't buy it.
Don't like that job, quit.
Don't like your housing, move.

The PROBLEMS happen because DIShonest capitalists Bribe politicians to enact regulations that favor them.

Without the ability to bribe politicians to pass a regulation, the CONSUMER rules the economy.

Monopoly? Good. Provides huge financial incentive to create a better product or service to topple the monopoly.

Bad food? Good. A few people get sick and sue you out of business and no one will buy your product any more anyway.

Won't hire minorities or women? Good. IF it is true that they are "just as good or better" someone else will hire them and put you out of business.

Capitalism left totally alone is self correcting.

Is there suffering? Yes, but no more than there is under regulation.

The REASON why we have regulation is that weak people refuse to take
individual responsibilty for the choices they make, and expect Goverment to behave like a parent.

That is foolish. Frightened spoiled children get lazy and sulky and produce nothing but Excrement.

A capitalist economy naturally goes through "Boom" and "Bust" periods.
The average person is too stupid to save money during the boom so they can survive the coming bust.

Since politians serve limited terms and have to get re-elected, they have huge incentive to
prey on people during boom and bust.

During a Boom, they scoop up the rich republican votes to keep themselves in office.
During a Bust, they scoop up the impoverished democrat votes to keep themselves in office.

It's all a scam, a game of Musical chairs with two types of Cannibals calling the tune.

Wake up.

.
.
.
.
.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

So you want doctors, engineers, scientists, accountants, lawyers, architects, etc... who got their education from youtube?

Don't forget air traffic controllers.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Democratic socialism is the way of every other developed nation, and all, as a result, have a superior social system to that of the USA which in many respects should be classified as "2nd world", since we were turned into a neo-feudal corporate fiefdom by the "Reagan Revolution".

Laissez-faire capitalist policies are anathema to democracy.

Democracy?? They've got that covered, by virtue of the fact that for the last twenty years they've been pushing the narrative that America isn't a democracy. Yes, they drag out the warning that the Athenians tried it 2500 years ago and it resulted in mob rule, therefore the founding fathers rejected it.
Never mind that Athens was the last time on Earth that ANYONE tried direct democracy, never mind that democratic election of representatives is what is meant by democracy in the modern age, never mind that democratic representation is enshrined in the Constitution.
Never mind that the accepted definition of democracy is representative democracy functioning within the framework of a constitutional republic.
Doesn't matter, children are being taught to despise democracy.
And adults like Stephen Moore, a Trump pick for Treasury Secretary, are openly saying that he's "never been a big fan of democracy."

And yes, he drags out that 2500 year old Athenian trope about "two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner", as if our representative form of democracy somehow equals a game of wolves and sheep.

In another ten years if this trend continues apace, the American people, having been sufficiently indoctrinated, will be screaming for authoritarian dictatorship. Then it won't really matter anymore how we practice our capitalism.
The authorities will decide what you think and do.
And you won't have to worry about pesky things like voting on the issues anymore.