and have the people's interest in mind as well

but eventually due to them not being elected, rather born into it

It's like trying to say companies in a market are held honest because of consumer input

you get assholes who only care about the elites and themselves, they will only vote to keep the elites elite and the poor poor

@ChampionEmperor yeah it's almost like for all of time the privileged class and their bourgeois right perpetuates their positions for the interests of themselves

And not the principles of society

nope

I'm talking about an aristocratic system where they hold political power such as the nobles did

All systems with such power dynamic

I'm not talking about people with money, albeit that they do hold political influence with money to campaigns, I'm talking about significant power like a vote

I wasn't necessarily talking money

The power dynamic of politics is inseparable from the power dynamic of wealth

hmm

I see where you're coming from

I can agree to an extent however I don't find it so similar that it' is comparable to an aristocracy

like nobles

no its the same

The entire history of how Marx viewed it. The free market and trade liberalisation lobby by aristocrats benefitted poor people immensely.

No it benefitted merchants and pushed them into the dominant sphere of the economy

Yes and it raised living standards of poor which can be shown by increase in median GDP per capita

the concept of GDP how we know it didnt come about until after world war 1

long long long after private money making engendered capitalism

besides the "free market" and "trade liberalization" isn't quite how what happened

it was heavily mercantilism on the backs of the poor

Mercantilism slowly transitioned to fee markets. It is the poor/middle class who wanted mercantilism like they want in USA now. Rich people wanted free trade sonas to but expensive items

And after capitalism climbed as the mode of production your "free market" and trade liberalization seen during the Gilded Age didn't help the poor worth shit

and no, the poor and middle class do not want mercantilism

smh. They wanted mercantlism. They supported protection of local industries.

mercantilism is not protection of local industries

a global extant of capital and control over minerals is not local industry

its a top down enforcement of wealth for the top

Buddy, liberalisation and FDI does that. Do you know what FDI is?

define it for us in your definition of it

It has a legal/ economic definition.

GDP does not reflect wealth of individuals in all classes, I believe Japan is a good example of this (though I may be wrong)

GDP

growth domestic product

is calculated by the imports and exports made by a country and how much it makes i think

lose / gain

No, it does not. But distribution of GDP does show that. You can divide GDP based on how much of it comes from small business owners

it still stands that this statement: `The free market and trade liberalisation lobby by aristocrats benefitted poor people immensely.` is heavily wrong