Short answer:
Yes, but if you bake-in safeguards you will be much better off than trying to wrestle the power back later.
Long answer:
I would argue that most times they are. Looking at our own government, one would assume that those "in power" can write laws (legislative), enforce laws (executive), and/or interpret laws (judicial). The more of these branches those "in power" have, the more power they have over laws or "the rules." The more of the branches filled with wealthy individuals, the more likely they will exhibit qualities typical of the wealthy. And I believe wealthy people typically fall into two groups: zero sum and non-zero sum. Zero sum assume that money is limited, if one gains, another loses. Non-zero sum assume that working together two people can make more than the sum of their parts, if one gains, another gains. I know none of the ultra wealthy personally, but I am inclined to think more ultra wealthy are "zero sum." Further, these zero sums will likely feel very inclined to protect their status, and keep the poor poor, as a matter of self survival. As such, the more influence the wealthy have over the three ways rules effect us, assuming the typical proportion of zero sum and non-zero sum that I believe exists in the wealthy also exists among the wealthy in power, the more likely the rules will be zero-sum minded, and aimed at keeping the poor poor. Non-zero sum ultra wealthy definitely would not like the idea of high taxes for the ultra wealthy. I think we need look no further than the Tax Bill at the beginning of our current administration to see that non-zero-sum ultra wealthy likely do have a great deal of power and do use it to write the rules.
That said, the three-branches system of government (executive, legislative, and judicial) is a good example of smart people realizing that you can at least bake-in safeguards into a system. Yes, they were wealthy, but nowhere near as wealthy as the ultra wealthy of today, who are more like the royalty wealthy of their time. They certainly did not want any more kings. Their system did a pretty good job for a couple hundred years of splitting power and putting in checks and balances to prevent one person or group taking control of all, or most, branches. Or, centralization-proofing, if you will.
I am no expert in America history. I may be wrong in this. But it seems from my current perspective that this is the longest one group (specifically, non-zero-sum ultra wealthy) have had so much control. That is, other than the two groups that started it all, namely whites and males, and clearly neither of which are mutually exclusive of the non-zero-sum ultra-wealthy group. And like whites and males had, they have put in their own safeguards to keep their power as long as possible. The parties change, but the taxes never really seem to go back to pre-Reagan levels, do they? Will the non-wealthy have to wait as long as women and non-whites to wrestle even a small amount of power towards them?
Arguably, there is still hope. Yes, it seems like there is a wall of money around the branches, through which only those also made of money can pass through. But the wall might not be able to smell the difference between non-zero-sum money and zero-sum money. Maybe that means some non-zero-sum wealthy will slip through and, once inside, tear down the wall. But I suspect while the money-wall can't smell the difference, the money-people inside can, and will thwart the non-zero-sum wealthy, so that may not work. Or maybe the non-zero-sum wealthy will fund tools that can put cracks in the wall of money, allowing non-money people to slip through. But certainly the zero-sum wealthy are funding tools as well, ones that fortify the wall. And, again, there's still the problem of those already in thwarting anyone who slips in.
I have no solutions here for the current situation with the American government. But I do think there's a lesson. Plan well ahead of time, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Because once it's too late, and centralization occurs, it seems almost impossible to overcome.
My god, you have almost written a complete post in a comment. ;)
My point is no matter who rules in a centralized way, they always want to keep their power and their status, and to remain there. They going to find a way to keep their wealth and keep the other class to work harder!
The real answer is to play smarter than them and find a way for your own wealth accumulation.
Sorry for the delay in response, but at first, I didn't know you had responded because I don't get email notifications (haven't bothered to figure out if they are even possible). Then I spent a few days thinking about it. Here's my response:
That sounds very zero sum.
But, it is true there are parts of life that are zero sum. Effort is one. You can spend your time trying to accumulate money/power/status, or you can spend your time trying to effect the system. Now, I'm not saying doing all of one or the other is most optimal. Doing a little of both might have the most effect. But it is a fact you can't really do two things at once.
So, the question is how much time do you spend on "wealth accumulation" and how much do you spend on "effecting the system."
Honestly, in many times throughout history the choice was much easier, as there was no choice. There were no opportunities to do anything but try "wealth accumulation." I imagine when you are a serf in Medieval Europe, your only option is to work hard at trying to get two blankets to sleep with, instead of just one, before you die. I, for one, would not want to be in that situation, so I am glad I have the opportunity to consider putting some effort toward "effecting the system."
While effort is mostly zero sum, I still believe that cooperation with others can be non-zero sum. I put in a little effort in an area I specialize in, you put in a little effort in an area you specialize in, and the results are more than if either of us tried to do it alone.
That's true if it's "wealth accumulation" or "effecting the system."
Let's say you and I work for a boss in Little Widget Shop to make widgets, each needs to be assembled and tested. You're good at assembling; I'm good at testing. We work on "wealth accumulation" by dividing labor, and our productivity is through the roof. Our boss gives us an award, says "good job," and we get a minor pay increase. Our boss, however, is making 10x as much as he used to.
Now, if we just collectively bargain for a bigger raise, or even be made equal partners with our boss, we're not really "effecting the system"--it's really just more wealth/power/status accumulation. Let's say we become equal partners with the boss, well then we realize we don't need the boss, so we out-vote and get rid of him. Then it's just you and I. Turns out that I have a rich uncle who passes away and I suddenly have more wealth/power, so I push you out and run Little Widget Shop alone. But then Massive Widget Corp pushes Little Widget Shop out. In fact, our old boss, you, and I now all have to work for Massive Widget Corp. And the guy who runs Massive Widget Corp has all the wealth/power/status and everyone else has effectively none.
We could try "effecting the system"--and actually fail. You and I leave Little Widget Shop and join the Decentralized Widget Collective A. Everything goes well at first, but the rules at Decentralized Widget Collective A are not very robust. A few people figure out how to turn Decentralized Widget Collective A into Centralized Widget Collective A. Which soon becomes Centralized Widget Corp A. Which eventually is bought out by Massive Widget Corp. And we all end up working for Massive Widget Corp, including the guys who sold Centralized Widget Corp A, and one guy gets all the wealth/power/status.
Finally, we could try "effecting the system"-- and actually succeed. We join Decentralized Widget Collective B. Decentralized Widget Collective B has very, very robust rules that make it very, very hard for anyone to have all the wealth/power/status. The Decentralized Widget Collective B gets more people, so much more that they can actually compete with Massive Widget Corp. Massive Widget Corp tries to take it over, tries to buy it out, tries everything, but fails. This is the only scenario in which one guy does not own all the wealth/power/status.
Of course, will Decentralized Widget Collective B always work? Or will someone find a way to weaken the rules of Decentralized Widget Collective B and will there be a new Massive Widget Corp B that will take advantage of these weakened rules? Will democracy always succeed or will sometimes democratic freedoms slowly erode and eventually an autocrat takes over? I suspect it has a lot to do with how robust the rules of democracy/decentralization are. I don't know what those rules are or should be, but I think it is worth the effort to try to come up with them. Even if it means sacrificing effort that could be spent on wealth accumulation. Because in the wealth accumulation game eventually one guy gets it all, and I doubt very highly it would be me.
You need to be adaptive in the situation that is in front of you between wealth accumulation of affecting the system like you mentioned many times in your comment.
Yes, we are in agreement, sometimes accumulate, sometimes effect. Especially since, when money is made most important in a system, it might be the only way to make a change to the system, such as making it less important. The tricky thing is knowing when to do either, and whether it'll be possible to switch between the two, seeing, as again, power corrupts etc. You may think, finally, I have enough for myself to be comfortable, but what about your immediate family, what about providing for decendents... Is it simply power corrupt or is it more that people who seek it are ambitious types who would continually be ambitious. Would it occur to those who wanted wealth to then change the system from being controlled by wealth. I have none of these answers.
I have been reading a book called "Algorithms to Live By" and I just read a page about bacterial resistance (p 200 in the paperback). The question in the 1940s was does bacterial resistance to viruses occur because the bacteria responds to a virus or because random chance. Salvador Luria realized that if you raised multiple generations of different lineages, and then exposed them all to a virus, if it were reaction they'd all have roughly the same amount of resistance. If it were chance mutation, it would be more wildly dispersed. Those that mutated earlier in ancestors, would pass it on to all, they'd all survive. Those later would have it fewer descendants with resistance. Some would have no resistance. That is what he found. When I think about rich people who stop amassing wealth and then distribute wealth, I notice it is generally the same. Either not at all, or a little, or everything. A person evolves over time, like bacteria over generations. This suggests that an evolution early on, not something after they've amassed wealth, leads them to give back or perhaps effect the system. Thus, this gives credence to the idea that if a person truly does not want to live/act zero sum, wants to change things later, that once they receive wealth they will be more likely to have "resistance" to the "virus" of "power corrupts." Otherwise, there would be more even amount of "giving back." Real data would need to corroborate this, but anecdotally this gives me hope that someone with good intentions will do good things with money. It also gives me little hope for those who have accumulated wealth/power and have a history since their earliest evolution (childhood) of being zero-sum, or worse charges against their character.
You are someone educate and well informed, adaptation is what you need when you want to build wealth. You can be on the side of power and be a corrupted person or a man that spread his fortune for good causes.