I agree, we've probably worked this one near to death. Just a few final observations....

How do you define a producer? Adam Smith's definition was straightforward: A laborer. He believed that labor directly produces wealth, and capital produces wealth only indirectly, by enhancing labor. Yet in the modern world, many people believe that capital can produce wealth directly. The dot-com VCs created IPOs, not companies; and the suckers who bought their stock after the IPO were investing in the stock market, not companies. It was wrong-headed, but I don't expect the wealthy investors to learn that lesson. They'll be back, with another get-quick-rich scheme for bypassing Smith's economic theories. These are the people you would give the power to run the country???? Their track record is a powerful demonstration that there is no connection between money and judgment, let alone wisdom.

A system in which political power is proportional to economic power (if you like, as measured by taxes paid; but other measures work as well) is an oligarchy. An oligarchy would destroy the American dream, which is based on the promise of the opportunity to succeed on a level playing field. Tying economic power to political power will tilt the playing field enormously, allowing those who start with economic power to consolidate and protect it, at the expense of the upstarts who might otherwise have looked forward to reward proportional to effort. An oligarchy establishes a monopoly on capital, and gives those who control it control over the economy as a whole.

This would not be a good thing, and I stand by contention that universal democracy, with all its flaws, is still the least-worst system. All systems are imperfect and produce winners and losers; universal democracy produces the smallest number of losers.

I think that's just about enough...

--Robert