Upend the trickle-down

In the 1980s, the leaders of Western democracies promised that cutting taxes and giving markets free rein would bring wealth to all. Instead, nearly half a century later, the result has been the opposite: more debt, repeated financial collapses, and a concentration of wealth not seen since the 1920s. The underlying belief was simple: if you promote the growth of the wealthiest, the benefits “trickle down” to everyone. But when we look at the data, the reality is different. The argument here is that the very structure of our democracies has been eroded by these neoliberal policies, and that the only way out is to completely overturn the logic of trickle-down: we need stronger institutions, better political candidates, and a distribution of wealth that does not leave everything in the hands of a few. It's not just about money, but about how the rules of the game are made. Those who lived through those years remember Reagan and Thatcher as the faces of the neoliberal revolution. Reagan handed out a 3,000-page manual written by the Heritage Foundation to his cabinet members. It was like a bible for shrinking the state and liberalizing everything. Thatcher followed suit. From there, tax cuts, deregulation, and the privatization of public infrastructure proliferated in much of the Western world. The author of this perspective is a former corporate strategist who has interviewed dozens of international bankers and written books about how the justice system fails to punish corruption in large corporations. One striking detail: as early as the 1980s, public debt in wealthy democracies rose from 40% to 65% of GDP, while household incomes grew less and less and their debt more than doubled. The promise was growth, but the reality was fragility. But there is more: the real winner of this period was the financial sector, which, with liberalization, saw risks, speculation, and its own political power increase exponentially. In the United States and the United Kingdom, banks have become one of the dominant powers. The cycle is all too clear: approximately every seven years, a market bubble bursts, creating enormous wealth for a few investors and leaving the middle class increasingly behind. Take the case of today's young people: for many, owning a home and having a decent pension have become a pipe dream. Another striking fact: since 1980, the share of wealth held by the richest 1% has once again exceeded a quarter of the total in countries such as the United States, France, and Germany. And research from 2025 shows that between 30 and 45% of private funding for U.S. presidential candidates comes from this very 1%. The result? Oligarchs who rewrite the rules to their advantage, also using public debt as leverage to inflate their wealth. The effect on institutions is devastating: governments unable to manage crises, financial scandals without real punishment, and plummeting public trust. A concrete example: during the 2008 financial crisis, Senator Elizabeth Warren denounced the fact that “not a single major banker was indicted, let alone prosecuted.” The laws themselves help the powerful get away with it: the medieval rule of mens rea, which requires proof of intent to convict someone of a crime, makes it almost impossible to punish financial crimes. And investigations are often handled by bodies that are too close to the companies they are supposed to oversee. In countries like Singapore, on the other hand, there is an independent commercial police force that investigates without conflicts of interest: a more effective model. But the most counterintuitive proposal in the article is this: we should pay our politicians more. It sounds crazy, but in reality, low salaries attract mediocre or corrupt people. An example: the base salary of the U.S. president has been $400,000 since 2001, and the salary of the British prime minister is even lower than it was fifteen years ago. In Australia, tripling the pay of parliamentarians would cost less than $80 million in an economy worth $2 trillion — a minimal amount if it serves to attract capable and honest people. In addition to salary, there needs to be transparency regarding candidates' assets and more equitably funded election campaigns, such as the “democracy vouchers” trialed in Seattle. There is also an underlying problem: Western democracies are dominated by duopolies, such as the Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. or the Conservatives and Labour in the UK. This structure blocks the emergence of new ideas. Noam Chomsky sums it up as follows: “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinions, but allow lively debate within that spectrum.” Another revolution would be to stop measuring success solely by GDP. GDP grows even if diseases, wars, or disasters increase: it does not take into account quality of life, unpaid work, or natural resources. Countries like New Zealand are already experimenting with indicators that also measure real well-being and the health of institutions. And take note: the solution is not less democracy, but more. Assemblies of citizens chosen by lot, as in Ireland, have succeeded in addressing divisive issues such as abortion and climate in a much more representative way than traditional parliaments. But to truly bring about change, mass protests are needed: research shows that if at least 3.5% of the population takes to the streets, the chances of success are very high. Yet every reform encounters barriers from the very politicians and oligarchs who should be changing it. In short, the crisis of Western democracies is not bad luck: it is the result of flawed rules, concentrated interests, and weakened institutions. The only way to turn things around is to rebuild strong institutions, select better politicians, and rethink the distribution of economic power, even if this means openly challenging those who currently hold everything. The rules that we thought would ensure everyone’s prosperity have done the opposite: they have created fragility and concentrated power. If you feel that this vision turns the narrative about growth and democracy on its head, there’s a gesture on Lara Notes that you won’t find anywhere else: I'm In. It's not a like; it's a way of saying that, from today, this perspective belongs to you. And if the discussion about the crisis of democracy turns into a real conversation with someone — maybe at dinner, maybe in the office — on Lara Notes, you can mark the moment by tagging those who were there with Shared Offline. That way, it won't be lost like so much forgotten chatter. This summary comes from Aeon and saves you 9 minutes compared to the original article.