Speaking of the prediction that "a breakout populist candidate will emerge in the Republican primary," High Plateau Drifter writes,
The Trump surge in the polls is very important because it marks an early indication of conflict between and among oligarchs. Most politicians are dependent crumb - catching nobody's. Their goal is to amass a comfortable living of 10 to 20 million. The best way to do that is to please their oligarch sponsors. In general, oligarchs view themselves as world citizens and feel no obligation or sense of responsibility whatever toward the American people. Trump is an oligarch and he troubles himself to run because he fears danger in the current economic malaise.
It is only when the oligarchs begin to quarrel among themselves that we might get a change that heads off disaster.
As an eighth grader at a highly selective magnet school - in truth a petri dish specimen of a poor, upwardly mobile youth for study by the children of wealthy elites who controlled the city - I immediately recognized that the graduated income tax was designed to keep me in my economic place, to make sure that my climb up the ladder would be slowed. But it took me a very long time to realize that the welfare state socialism which all of those other children so fervently supported - taxes on income to support transfer payments - was designed to push the burden of poor relief down the economic ladder to the far more numerous classes of wage earners and off the backs of those made wealthy by the industrial revolution and what followed, those who certainly did not want to assume the communitarian support obligations typically borne by the old landed aristocracy. A brilliant scheme to lift the burden from those making capital gains and shift it to salarymen and wage earners.
I also realized that chattel property rights in human beings were wildly uneconomic because of the support obligation inherent in maintaining the economic value of that chattel propert - roughly equivalent to wages for "free" labor - and the contrasting reduced risk and economic flexibility inherent in the ability to simply lay off "free" labor when an enterprise ceased to be profitable, particularly when the obligation of support was not placed on the owners of the enterprise that laid them off, but rather upon those who continued working and earning a salary or wage. The wonder of it is that such a clear economic benefit of freedom from the obligation of support for those who would otherwise bear the economic risk of layoffs and unemployment was never publicly discussed nor mentioned in those economics texts I studied at Johns Hopkins. An even greater wonder was the ease with which the shedding of economic risk of supporting or disposing of chattel property in human beings was so successfully pawned off as a great moral crusade.
And it took longer still to understand why no conservative politician ever phrases these issues in those simple and straight forward terms.