""leaders have to make decisions. we need leaders" You frame a gray issue binary. We need competent leaders + we need competent citizens + we need to be lucky to face issues with clear resolution. <a href=""http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%23dunbarnumber"">#dunbarnumber</a>",(reply>), @Laszer271 <br>I'll start with your closing thesis:<br><br><i>&gt; I'm not saying that we should not care for the wage gap but robbing the richest and giving to the poorest is the worst imaginable way of "doing economy". But that's also what the majority would want.</i><br>Apparently that is not what the majority wants, or they would elect Robin Hood.<br><br>Apart from the government not letting their citizens (who in a democracy are who the government is supposed to work for) starve having nothing to do whatsoever with robbing the rich.  Quite the opposite, actually:  It guarantees a steady supply of consumer demand, so that the rich can keep getting richer.<br><br><br>The rest of what you wrote does not address my question.<br>I will comment it anyway, but you may skip it if you want.<br><br><i>&gt; the government just selects the group easiest for manipulation and hand them money in the disguise of "raising social".</i><br>I've certainly never heard politicians granting themselves an increase in diets called "social" before.<br><br><i>&gt; You know, there was a revolution in France long ago because the nobles were stupid and had too much money on them.</i><br>Not exactly.  The Burgeoisie (part of the Third Estate) had more money, but the First and Second Estate had all the land and almost all the food while the poorest were starving.<br>Louis XVI opened the books of the treasurey to prove that the royal family were not wasting money, and to show where the money actually went.<br><br><i>&gt; People killed the nobles</i><br>Not immediately.  First they imprisoned the royal family and took power from the government, establishing their own.  It was the mandatory anti-establishment sentiment of the new establishment to become increasingly ferocious against the old establishement and eventually itself.<br>Many nobles survived the revolution, mostly lower nobility from the provinces, but also one member of the royal family.<br>The leaders of the revolution themselves did not.<br><br><i>&gt; then they were starving in Paris</i><br>Not really.<br>There had been people starving in Paris before the revolution.  After the revolution there was nothing that prevented their access to the granaries and fully stocked wine cellars.  Plus they didn't have to supply the nobility with strawberries to bathe in anymore, but could actually eat the food themselves.<br><br><i>&gt; dead nobles surprisingly didn't care about crops</i><br>Neither did almost all of the living nobles before the revolution.<br><i>&gt; and couldn't sell food in the city.</i><br>The nobles had no business selling food in the city.  The Third Estate did.  The nobles enjoyed food being carted to Versailles from their lands as tax, as was their privilege.  While parts of the population were starving, I might add.<br><br><i>&gt; If you want the world to burn and people to starve just let the majority decide everything.</i><br>If that is how you assess your own ability, it's certainly best not to let <i>you</i> decide anything.  Not that we have to worry about that, becaues it seems you'd rather be led by someone else rather than take responsibility for yourself anyway.<br>￼<br><i>&gt; If there is 10% people on which 90% of economy depends (the rich people)</i><br>I feel we need to define what we mean by "the economy" first.  Because I understand the economy to be the exchange of goods, services, and ideas.  As such, if the economy <i>depends</i> on any minority group in particular (in this case the rich), the economy is seriously corrupted.<br><br>If by "the economy" you mean that part of commerce that is taxed, then you should know that "the rich" contribute the least.<br><br>If by "the economy" you mean the GDP, then the rich do contribute the most.  Moving money from a checking account to a holdings account (for tax optimisation purposes) and back (for investment purposes) contributes greatly to the GDP, with no actual commerce taking place.  The GDP is not a very meaningful metric for an economy.<br><br>Although "the rich" that make up more than 90% of the GDP are less than 1%.<br><br><i>&gt; the richest," most productive people</i><br>That is a false equivalence.<br>See here: <a href=""https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDOXhJ_mSGY"">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDOXhJ_mSGY</a><br><br>(And would you seriously say that a royal prince of Saud is several trillion times more productive than anyone working on his family's oil fields?)",(reply>), @David Wührer From a more logical standpoint. If there is 10% people on which 90% of economy depends (the rich people) and the 90% people on which 10% of economy depends (the not that rich people) the government to get the votes will take the money from the richest, most productive people and hand it to the poorest, least productive people (also losing 15% of the money in the process just because of formalities). I'm not saying that we should not care for the wage gap but robbing the richest and giving to the poorest is the worst imaginable way of "doing economy". But that's also what the majority would want so hey, cheers to democracy.,(reply>), @David Wührer It's not just bad, it's the worst. Most people just want the government to hand them money "cause they deserve it".  So the government just selects the group easiest for manipulation and hand them money in the disguise of "raising social". You know, there was a revolution in France long ago because the nobles were stupid and had too much money on them. People killed the nobles and robbed their properties, then they were starving in Paris because dead nobles surprisingly didn't care about crops and couldn't sell food in the city. That's how wise is the general population. If you want the world to burn and people to starve just let the majority decide everything.,(reply>), @Laszer271 How is maintaining participation of the general population in the economy bad for the economy?,(reply>), @Laszer271 I agree democracy is doing poorly in a lot of the world today, although for different reasons. Parties giving mega donors more money, contracts, etc I do agree is bad. I think the problem is that money influences the democracy too much. For it to work better, each person should have a single vote regardless of wealth. Which would mean no more lobbying in America<br><br>I think there's other neat things we could try with democracy too, like instead of everyone being elected, have like 10% of the representatives be chosen randomly from the population (like jury duty). That'd help a bit with the whole political dynasty issues with the lack of term limits