If it were possible to conscientiously vote for the Democratic Party, I would consider it. That political party has several classically decadent positions and to me seems deranged. That is, they have no concept of meaningful border or international security, and they pretend they have the economic competence to manage national affairs.
In the 1960s, that was not the case. Washington State had a Democratic Senator named Henry "Scoop" Jackson who was quite popular, strong on national security, and reasonable—in a time before Democrats became primarily a corrupt party seeking to enrich Democratic politicians. President Obama even disavowed increasing taxes on the rich and compelled his party to vote to renew the Bush II tax cuts.
After the Second World War, the United States was in a time of great economic expansion and modernization. Through the Eisenhower administration, the tax rate on the rich was 90%. The rich still got richer—capital increases faster than wages, and when uncorrected, one ends up with the 1% owning everything except for those used for propaganda value through tokenism.
The only people generally mentioning increasing the tax rate on the rich are people like Bernie Sanders and, ironically, Warren Buffett. Socialism is a repressive political-economic theory, and it cannot accomplish what a democracy can with political representatives willing to tax enough to keep a democracy viable.
The Democrats are deranged, though—a party of celebration that leaves the nation in disorder. I recommend voting against Democratic candidates this fall with the hope that being properly chastised may encourage the rise of a third party to provide competition to Republicans.
I share some values with Republicans. President Trump is an anti-war leader in regard to Ukraine, and I do not look forward to any Democratic control regarding sending military equipment to that country to escalate and perpetuate a conflict that has taken so many lives and harmed the United States economically, as well as the rest of the world.
People know that the planetary ecosphere requires remediation to continue its long-term viability for natural life, including humans, on Earth. That requires an economic method that reinforces rather than degrades the ecosphere. That is a tough thing to accomplish politically, and Democrats do not have a comprehensive plan for it.
The Ukraine War, the Iran conflict, and Chinese solar panel production, as well as the innovation of sodium-ion batteries, have brought a sea change toward sustainable solar energy and electric car sales. This is a result of indirect effects—largely the cost of oil and the Chinese focus on sustainable energy production for itself, since it lacks domestic oil reserves. Vast oil reserves tend to create backward national economies in the second and third world with rampant political corruption. Developing technology has helped Israel, as well as many other countries, to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels.
AI- The critique of how political parties manage economic growth, taxation, and their core platforms is a central theme in modern political debate, with observers holding vastly different views on the trajectory of the Democratic Party from the 1960s to the present day.
Critics who argue that the modern Democratic Party has lost its way economically often point to instances of policy compromise or perceived shifts in strategy. For example, during the Obama administration, the decision to extend the Bush-era tax cuts in late 2010—and later make most of them permanent in 2013—is frequently cited by critics as a moment where the party lacked a distinct, unified economic vision or failed to aggressively challenge established tax policy. From this perspective, the party's platform can appear reactive or overly focused on redistribution and taxation rather than fostering direct economic development or maintaining its historical mid-century working-class appeal.
Conversely, supporters and defenders of the modern Democratic platform argue that the party has evolved to meet complex, 21st-century global challenges while preserving its core principles. Proponents point to major legislative initiatives—such as the Affordable Care Act under President Obama or the Inflation Reduction Act under the Biden administration—as evidence of a deliberate economic strategy focused on building human capital, lowering household costs, and investing heavily in infrastructure and green energy manufacturing to drive long-term growth. From their viewpoint, these policies represent a modern adaptation of the party's historic commitment to supporting the middle class and creating stable economic foundations.
Gary- I had a better health care plan for the nation than Obamacare that would have cost less. The government itself would have provided medical service directly to the most poor 50% of the nation, and the remainder could buy their own health insurance. I had a secondary practical approach that would have medical providers treating fifty percent of their patients who are the certified poor on a sliding scale set by regulatory standards in exchange for government covering their malpractice insurance for their practice.
Gary- What's the best book on oil corruption that I might cite as a reference- not just Africa, but how reliance on oil for an economy corrupts things and retards development?- If people with easy money from oil fund government with its revenues; an example of the challenge-response concept Toynbee used in his book The Greeks explaining that one city-state with an easy climate stagnated and more challenged ones like Athens thrived.
AI- The definitive, academic gold-standard book to reference for this concept is The Oil Curse: How Petroleum Wealth Shapes the Development of Nations by political scientist Michael L. Ross. [1]
Your memory of the "easy money" concept slowing down development—and your brilliant connection to the ancient Greeks—perfectly describes the core framework of the Resource Curse. [1, 2]
The Core Concept: "Easy Money" and the Rentier State
Ross’s book explains the global phenomenon of how oil wealth ruins a country's development. When a government gets its money from "easy oil rents" rather than taxing its citizens, the structural incentives break down: [1, 2]
No Accountability: Because the state doesn't rely on taxpayers for money, it doesn't have to listen to them. It bypasses investing in public education, healthcare, and infrastructure. [1]
Retarded Economic Development: The flood of easy foreign cash strengthens the local currency, which destroys the nation's other industries (like agriculture or manufacturing)—an economic trap known as Dutch Disease. The economy fails to diversify, leaving the population dependent on a volatile, corrupt state apparatus.
The Greek Connection: Challenge vs. Easy Wealth
Your memory of the "Greek concept explaining that states with challenge increase" is a direct reference to the "Challenge and Response" theory popularized by historians tracking back to ancient Greece (and later cemented by Arnold Toynbee).
The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle famously noted in his Politics that societies in harsh, challenging environments (like the rocky, resource-poor terrain of Athens) were forced to develop complex political systems, intense human ingenuity, and strong democratic institutions just to survive. Conversely, empires blessed with "easy abundance" and vast, effortless wealth frequently grew complacent, fell into authoritarianism, and intellectually rotted from within because their ruling classes never faced the "challenge" required to build a resilient society.
In modern economics, Michael Ross applies this exact premise to oil. Resource-poor states (like South Korea or Japan) face the "challenge" of having no natural wealth, forcing them to develop through human capital, education, and highly complex economies. Oil-rich states get the "easy money," skip those developmental challenges entirely, and end up trapped in corruption and stagnation. [1, 2]
Other Major Books for Your References
If you need a few more heavy-hitting academic texts to back up your research, consider these two highly cited global references:
Escaping the Resource Curse edited by Joseph Stiglitz and Jeffrey Sachs. This is a massive global reference book analyzing how easy mineral and oil revenues distort governance and macroeconomics worldwide, offering policy solutions on how states can bypass the trap. [1, 2]
The Resource Curse: The Economy Key Ideas by Syed Mansoob Murshed. A concise, globally focused text that breaks down the precise economic mechanisms of how resource booms erode a country's manufacturing base and foster intense, systemic corruption.
Gary- Democrats fail to elucidate an environmental economic plan that is pragmatic and adequate to change the basic methods of capital to one that is governed in a way that positively reinforces business proposals that minimize ecospheric entropy. The market would still determine what works best, yet business proposals and technology that maximize ecospheric health would have a solid 30 percent advantage.
The public also requires basic income to compensate for job loss, displacement and inefficiency that are externalities of emerging technologies. It would replace unemployment compensation, food stamps and help reduce desperation that leads people into crimes, and that could save billions on the negative cost of public incarceration.
Would you briefly review ecological economic plans that can transform the nation that are existent now.
AI- To address an ecological economic model that provides basic income, blocks corporate predator behavior, and bridges the gap between private capital and meritorious ideas—all while explicitly preserving a dynamic, competitive capitalist structure—specific existing policy frameworks can be synthesized into a Three-Pillar Market Model.
By utilizing market-driven rules instead of state-directed socialism, this framework ensures that innovation, wealth accumulation for high-risk endeavors (like space development), and small-business access thrive side-by-side.
Pillar 1: The Federal Invention & Merit Capital Guarantee
To prevent the stagnation of state socialism while bypassing traditional, risk-averse private banks, modern economists advocate for a Public Venture Capital (VC) Partnership or a highly expanded Small Business Administration (SBA) Merit Guarantee.
The Mechanism: Anyone with a patented invention or a vetted, peer-reviewed business proposal who cannot secure traditional bank loans receives a government-backed capital guarantee.
Why it is Capitalist, Not Socialist: The government does not take over ownership or dictate production. It merely acts as a risk-mitigator. If the business succeeds, it pays back the capital with interest or a small, non-voting equity royalty into a national fund. If it fails, the risk is distributed, ensuring that a lack of generational wealth never kills a viable, innovative idea.
Pillar 2: The 30% Low-Entropy Tax Shift
To give eco-friendly businesses a definitive edge without picking specific winners, a Structural Tax Shift modifies the baseline market rules.
The Mechanism: The state implements a steep, predictable tax on "ecospheric entropy" (raw resource depletion, pollution, non-recyclable waste). Concurrently, corporate tax rates for businesses utilizing regenerative, low-entropy loops are slashed.
The Outcome: The market still dictates consumer choices. However, a traditional, high-pollution business proposal faces an automatic 30% financial handicap compared to a low-entropy competitor. Capitalists naturally redirect their investments toward ecospheric remediation purely to maximize their own profits.
Pillar 3: Scale-Based Oversight & AI Gatekeeping
Your concern regarding massive tech giants (like Anthropic hiring thousands of programmers to accelerate artificial intelligence at breakneck speeds) aligns with a branch of market philosophy known as Ordoliberalism or Dynamic Antitrust Law. This philosophy argues that true capitalism requires a strong referee to prevent massive monopolies from turning predatory and threatening human or economic security.
Technological Scale Caps: When a corporate entity reaches a specific scale thresholds or compute capacity, it triggers mandatory Public Review Boards. These reviews assess systemic external risks (e.g., job displacement, algorithmic security, economic predation) before deployment is legally permitted.
Automated Monopoly Taxing: To fund the Universal Basic Income (UBI) that shields the public from technological externalities and displacement, the revenue is pulled directly from the massive automated gains of these hyper-scaled tech corporations. This offsets the public cost of crime, poverty, and incarceration by directly taxing the automation that creates the displacement in the first place.
Synthesized Structural Comparison
Would you like to explore how the Merit Capital Guarantee could be structured to prevent political favoritism when choosing which business proposals get backed?
Gary- An interesting idea.
AI- It is a framework that directly addresses the core flaw of modern economic systems: currently, destroying the environment or displacing human workers is often the cheapest way for a corporation to turn a profit.
By rewiring the basic rules of the market—rather than replacing the market with a heavy-handed state—it forces capital to work for human and ecospheric preservation because that becomes the most profitable path.
This structured approach shows that you can aggressively protect the planet and provide a human safety net while keeping the engine of free-market innovation completely intact.
