Regarding authoritarianism inherent in free markets

Context

The reality of American politics and government is very bad and getting worse fast. We are operating under a highly energized, corrupt, structurally authoritarian/oligarchic, demagogue‑friendly system. There is an ongoing war between that and what is left of the old status quo, i.e., a frozen, obsolete Constitution and system of law. The big picture is complex. Far bigger and more complex than a single ~400 word blog post can convey.

This post links a trait of unregulated free markets in capitalism with what that means for America’s bitter war of authoritarianism (concentrated wealth & power) vs democracy (less concentrated wealth & power).

Two relevant research data points: First, most experts now believe that the US is sliding toward authoritarianism, which is tightly linked to Trump’s mendacious demagoguery and bad behaviors. Second, research consistently shows (and this, and this) that that economic inequality is one of the strongest predictors of democratic erosion and failure. Concentrated wealth and power push democracies toward authoritarianism.

How unregulated free markets behave

A 2019 SciAm article, Is Inequality Inevitable?, asks a key question about free markets. It turns out that inequality is the norm in unregulated markets, but not in reasonably regulated markets. This trait of capitalist markets is simply inherent. Absent regulation, wealth usually trickles up to a few. For better or worse, wealth naturally concentrates and tends toward oligarchy unless there is wealth redistribution by law or other wealth-distributing factors, e.g., taxes.

 
Later research continues to reinforce this data point. Given current forms of capitalism, weak labor power, and porous tax/ownership laws, rising inequality is structurally likely. If Trump and MAGA maintain (1) their current tax cuts (already tilted to favor the rich), (2) gutted regulations, and (3) open legalized influence‑buying (corruption), the probability that US inequality will rise further is extremely high. Current evidence shows that is happening right now. Link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4

A plausible (likely?) end game for American democracy

With increasing wealth inequality comes increased inequality in power. Power goes with the wealth. The wealthy elites buy policy and law that protects and expands their wealth and power. The US Supreme Court protects and expands the scope of legalized corruption (and this). In the end, we probably wind up with some form of kleptocratic (and this) authoritarianism, most likely a combination of Trump/MAGA elite dictatorship (and this), oligarchy (and this), and bigoted Christian nationalist theocracy. In the end, the American experiment in democracy and self-government will have failed.

The US approaches bankruptcy

Context

The US government just might be insolvent, or getting close to it. The US owns $6.06 trillion in total assets and owes $47.78 trillion in total liabilities as of September 30, 2025. That’s based on the Treasury Department’s consolidated financial statements for fiscal year 2025. This news was released last week. It elicited near-total silence from our mostly incompetent and complicit mainstream media.

Every year, the US Treasury quietly releases a report that reads like a slow‑motion horror story for public finances. In the latest Financial Report, debt held by the public sits around the size of the entire economy, roughly 99–100 percent of GDP, and is projected to climb far above its post‑World War II record if nothing changes. The Congressional Budget Office now expects federal debt to reach ~120% of GDP in the 2030s and keep rising after that. That’s before you even factor in the long‑term costs of Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the debt as the population ages. Link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4

A brief insolvency primer

A driver of how we got here is a deliberate political strategy called “Starve the Beast.” Since the late 1970s, radical right activists and conservative politicians, now MAGA authoritarians, have pushed the idea that you can force government to shrink by cutting taxes, even if the cuts blow holes in the budget. The theory was simple: if you deprive Washington of revenue, it will eventually have to slash spending. But in practice, the tax cuts went with higher spending. That created bigger deficits, not smaller government. The beast has been fed with borrowed money. Link 5, link 6

Behind this strategy is firmly entrenched wealth and power. That power is in wealthy donors, corporations, and networks that ideologically support or benefit from low taxes on capital and high‑end income while relying on the state for contracts, subsidies, and bailouts. These interests have corrupted the tax code, spending priorities, and budget deals in ways ordinary voters rarely see because its is rarely reported with coherence and clarity. Also, politicians lie about the problem all the time. Recent analyses by the Congressional Budget Office show that new budget laws usually reduce resources for households at the bottom while boosting them some the middle and a lot for the top. That pattern is no accident. It reflects who has the wealth-power in political decisions and policy. Link 7, link 8, link 9

Multiple analyses show that fiscal consolidations in advanced economies typically increase income inequality, especially when they lean on spending cuts rather than progressive taxation. Cuts fall on public services, and employment that matter most to the bottom and middle. At the same time, wealthy-powerful people and businesses work to shape tax changes to their advantage to minimize their pain. Link 10, link 11, link 12

So what happens when the herd finally spooks? That’s when wealthy investors and asset owners decide the numbers no longer add up and they stampede for the exits. History and international evidence suggest that when the bill for decades of easy deficits comes due, the pain usually falls hardest on people with the least wealth-power. Fiscal “consolidation” packages almost always cut public services, social benefits, and jobs that matter most to average households. Meanwhile those at the wealth-power top lobby our corrupted, endlessly money-hungry two-party system for protections for their tax breaks, portfolios and assets. Unless we change who writes the rules, the next fiscal crisis won’t just be about numbers. It will be about who gets sacrificed by how much to save a system they never controlled in the first place. Link 13, link 14

What about Trump and MAGA?

During Trump’s first term (Jan. 2017–Jan. 2021), the gross national debt rose from about $19.9 trillion to roughly $27.8 trillion, an increase of around $7.9–8.1 trillion (~40% increase). Analyses of his major policies estimate that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, bipartisan budget deals, and other legislation he approved collectively added about $8.8 trillion in new ten‑year borrowing to the debt trajectory. Link 15, link 16

Peanut gallery commentary

Peanut 1: Don’t worry deficits will be a big fucking deal again the next time a democrat is in office when all of a sudden government spending matters once again. I’m 40 have have seen this GOP hypocrisy game play out for my entire life.

Peanut 2: Me too and I’m 73.

Peanut 3: I’m 50, same here. I think the deficit really grew out of control and passed $1 trillion during Reagan admin. I'd love to never hear that "fiscally responsible" lie from Republicans again, but I know it'll never go away.

Peanut 4: The trickle down will happen any day now!

Peanut 5: It has been happening. But by "trickle down" they really mean golden shower.

Germaine: Nah, they really mean road apples.

Peanut 6: There won’t be another Democrat because the American experiment has failed.

☠️

The new normal: MAGA criminals are in charge of federal MAGA law enforcement

This 1:19 video says it all about (1) transparency in MAGA government, i.e., it's non-existent for MAGA elites, and (2) who is running federal law enforcement, i.e., criminals. In testimony under oath, MAGA FBI director Kash Patel invokes the 5th so he doesn't incriminate himself. All of the rest of Patel's testimony is redacted. The only non-redacted testimony is 1 sentence saying he invokes the 5th Amendment on advice of his counsel.

Link to the video: https://youtu.be/tF8MKNlQr24?si=D55-J1qVnQb04g8n

Note: Google now requires people to give access to their personal info in return for posting YouTube videos on their sites. Since I refuse, there's only the link to the video, not the embedded video. Such is the march of aggressive, unregulated capitalism under aggressive, thoroughly corrupt, vehemently anti-regulation MAGA government, law and commerce. 

When ‘Perception’ Matters: The Supreme Court’s One‑Way Street To Corrupt Authoritarianism

The lawsuit

TPM and other sources are reporting about oral arguments where the 6 MAGA USSC (US Supreme Court) judges signal they are willing to end state grace periods for mail-in ballots received after election day. In this case, Watson v. Republican National Committee, MAGA Republicans want the USSC to declare ballots mailed in before election day but received after election day to be invalid. That will affect hundreds of thousands of ballots in the 14 states that allow a grace period for receipt of mailed ballots within state grace periods. At least ~750,000 valid ballots were received after election day in the 2024 elections.

MAGA’s USSC hypocrisy in service to authoritarianism & corruption

In this lawsuit, the USSC’s MAGA bloc hypocritically treats vague “perceptions” of vote fraud as a constitutional emergency. During oral arguments, MAGA Justice Kavanaugh claimed that late‑arriving ballots might “destabilize election results” by prompting cries of fraud. As is usual for election fraud claims from MAGA elites, there is no evidence that grace periods cause significant fraud in elections. MAGA USSC judges repeatedly invoke “public confidence” in elections only when it justifies making it harder to count valid votes, not when far‑fetched fraud narratives are manufactured by partisan elites. Link 1, link 2

By contrast, when the issue is money in politics, MAGA judges flip. In Citizens United and later corruption-related cases, the Court said the only corruption government may target is outright quid‑pro‑quo bribery. The MAGA judges had no concern about public perceptions that special interest money buys and corrupt politicians, which happens a lot. Roberts’ MAGA court repeatedly struck down federal and state limits on big money, even when states offered concrete evidence that unlimited outside spending created both real and perceived corruption. In other words, speculative “perception” of fraud justifies MAGA judges suppressing votes, but documented actual corruption and appearance of corruption is not enough to justify restraining billionaires and corporations. Link 3, link 4, link 5

The same double standard pervades MAGA’s culture‑war decisions that advance a bigoted theocratic Christian‑nationalist agenda. In the Dobbs anti-abortion decision, the MAGA majority blew off 50 years of abortion rights precedent. The MAGA judges cynically claimed humility and constitutional neutrality while effectively empowering fundamentalist Christianity’s current vision of abortion and family life. There, the MAGA judges blithely ignored the obviously inevitable massive damage to women’s health and equality they were inflicting in the name of their theocratic authoritarianism. Rulings like this elevate authoritarian Christian claims in public life, while the justices falsely claim they are just following neutral legal principles. Link 6, link 7

MAGA’s pro-corruption and pro-authoritarian agenda is clear. MAGA politics is dead-set on establishing a minority rule by suppressing votes, supercharging the power of corrupting special interest money, and enforcing a reactionary Christian fundamentalist moral order on society and its laws. MAGA weaponizes fear of perceptions of non-existent election fraud to nullify lawful ballots. On the other hand, campaign‑finance cases ignore the public’s perception that the system is corrupt, which it actually is. Hypocritical MAGA court decisions cynically invoke faux neutrality to lock in Christian theocracy and oligarchic corruption that polls show most Americans reject. These are not isolated inconsistencies; they are the signature moves of an authoritarian MAGA USSC serving corrupt authoritarian, theocratic, and oligarchic interests hiding under a cynical veneer of law. Link 8, link 9