We are, unfortunately, in violent agreement. What's to be done? Tell the world about it, hope people wake up? It's better than nothing. I'm starting with people I see face to face, and the tiny corner of the internet I occupy.

What about dismantling the stock market? These are systemic problems. Free market economy works just fine without stocks. I can't prove it, but I feel there would be plenty of funding organizations to fuel your tech unicorns if the collective wealth of the America wasn't being spent and stored in this house of cards.

Nah, the stock market is a good idea. Nothing about the idea of a stock market precludes holding owners responsible for the behavior of the company they own. Appropriate regulatory action against large, misbehaving corporations would make irresponsible investment a bad idea, and index funds less of a safe bet as a result.

You are basically saying there should be stock market but only for ultra wealthy folks. And others have no right investing or expecting higher returns.

And you are defending the people's retirements be able to be gambled and speculated by the ultra wealthy folks that are the major shareholders.

On a tangent, I also think monarchy results in better management of the asset that is the country than democracy. The leader is there for life, the country is his sole property and thus incentivized to improve it and views the country as his life's work. (Obviously there are plenty of exceptions.) On the other hand, democratical leaders more often than not tend to view presidency as a means to acquire wealth, lifetime immunity, power and reputation in a short amount of time. Once elected for a term, they can engage in however much legal corruption they want, they'll be gone in a few years anyways. The POTUS poses an exception in that the country itself is a monarch and a hegemon over the rest of the world. Meanwhile especially third world countries, but even developed countries like Canada and many in the Europe have presidents promising the heaven in the election season and keep being as corrupt as last president once they are elected.

Draw the parallels with Venture Capital, board directors and whatever else you want.

> monarchy results in better management of the asset that is the country > than democracy. The leader is there for life, the country is his sole > property and thus incentivized to improve it and views the country as > his life's work. (Obviously there are plenty of exceptions.)

Obviously. The history of monarchy is full of bad heirs, succession crises and aristocratic disputes over legitimacy. Under monarchy, you don't get a say in the fact that your king is AEthelred Unraed, Tarquinus Superbus, George III, Ivan Grozny, or Leopold II. Say what you will about republican systems, they have their own issues. But monarchy, as a system, is just an absolutely miserable form of government. I wouldn't dream of trading the flawed republic that aspires to respect my rights for the caprice of a monarch. I don't know where you got your romantic ideas about monarchy from, but, my friend, read some history!

Oh, I do read history. Obviously, the worldview, ideology and character of the monarch makes a big difference. Back in the day they understood these three to be all influenced by a man's religion. There have been many merciful, goodwilled monarchs too, admittedly less of them in the European continent. Not to mention that your administration had far less power over you in the pre-IR (Industrial Revolution) era. I imagine there had been many settlements throughout history who had no idea in which country's borders they currently are living in.