864 Winners vs. Losers

<p>Politics will always be the losers against the winners. The winners want to maintain the status quo because they already have control, and whatever sophistry the losers use as justification for overturning the established order can be ignored because they simply want control. In a democracy, as long as the numbers aren't too lopsided, the status quo will continue because it takes a lot more losers versus a single winner to change anything, but those numbers are raising because the winners aren't making sure there are enough themselves. Winners continue to exploit the power of compounding gains to accumulate everything, but they eventually have to share, the easy way or the hard way.</p> <p>The most popular philosophy of losers is egalitarianism, equality, which imposes sharing on the winners. Using median wealth as a dividing line, by definition, half the people are in the loser camp; however, using the mean, the average, especially when the winners have vast concentrations of wealth, way more than half the people are losers. Pundits are correct to suspect a war between the winners and losers is coming because it’s always coming, because there’s always losers, and without wealth redistribution of some kind, the ratio of losers to winners will continue to increase. Frustratingly, all the winners in this contest have to do is not engage in nepotism and stop creating dynasties, but that’s the way our biology works, so though the solution is obvious, it seems unlikely to be implemented. The inevitable result will make them losers too.</p>