Even if industry and government should have similar goals (keeping the screw ups and cheaters out of the game), they can't seem to get together and put up some fairly simple regulatory frameworks.

You're somewhat confused about what the "similar goals" are between industry and government actually are. It has nothing to do with stupidity and much more to do with corruption and money. Industry (including and particularly cheaters) pay people in government through campaign contributions plus the age old promise of high paying jobs in industry once their political career is over to produce a "favorable" business climate. This can mean passing favorable legislation or removing regulatory pressure. If that isn't possible the regulators can simply be de-funded, the options are endless. The politicians love it, they get campaign contributions, connections to powerful people in industry and maybe even a cushy jobs on the Board of Directors when they are done. Where I'm living (Alabama) this sadly explains the majority of political practice here, from both parties.

Maybe this is what Tainter means by too much complexity causing our eventual downfall. Humans are just too stupid sometimes.

One possibility is that politicians are too stupid to establish a functional regulatory framework. However they somehow manage to construct a complicated taxation framework to collect trillions in taxes, build a massively complicated military and defense structure... I think a more reasonable explanation is that many (not all) politicians have no interest in building such a structure. The constituents are too diffuse and disorganized to make it worth their while except during election time, when they are at least give it lip service.

Right, because there was no entertainment industry before the digital age?!

I think what you mean is that the profitability of the entertainment industry will be be decreased and you might be right about that, but my guess is there will still be a multi-billion dollar industry before and after the abolition of any digital copyright.

There are no truly poor in America.

What you mean to say is that there is nobody in America who meets YOUR definition of truly poor - whatever that is.

There are more than enough truly poor people in the US - as defined by the US government, OECD, etc... Most people also intuitively (and correctly IMO) realize that the crazy homeless person they see wandering the streets of major urban centers is truly poor - they have no or little money, no shelter, etc... Pretty much the very definition of poverty and destitution, but perhaps in your world they have to be actively starving to death to be truly poor?

I think what you mean to say is that you can't emotionally handle the idea of real poverty well, so you declare it impossible (at least in America) so you don't have to think about it and definitely not do anything about it.

Actually not "all of us" found that multitude of posts convincing. I found some good posts, but a fair number of naive posts that seem to think that if everyone were smarter (like them) these problems could be solved.

You really think this is a problem? Every one should be an expert to have a say? I should know about every weapon system the US military produces in order to say I think the defense budget is too big?

I think you should worry less about stupid people and more about smart people. Smart people who can for instance construct intricate economic models on say sub-prime US mortgages, government issued bonds - figure out they are a horrible value - and then sell them to the US government or their own clients (whom they are supposed to be serving). A few of these smart people can cause a lot of damage.

Ask them if they want free healthcare, or free college tuition, and they will say yes. Ask them if they would be willing to pay 30-40-50% or higher taxes for this, and they will probably say "no, I don't make enough money.

If by "free" you mean public health care, it is a lot cheaper than the current mix of private and public that exists in the United States. I'm also sure most people would be willing to pay more taxes to avoid paying private insurance and ending the stress of worrying medically related bankruptcy.

The few times that any majoritarian consensus is achieved
On planet earth I don't think there has ever been such a consensus, nor is there likely to be. The main problem in the real world is dealing with a tiny, powerful minority who wields vast wealth and power over the rest of us. I think you have better things to worry about.

It's a really bad example.

Democracy isn't about people being experts in a profession, it's about people in general being their own judge of what is best for them. People of course make mistakes, but in general people do a better job than anybody else looking after their own interests.

At some level, a meritocratic group -- people with real expertise -- has to step in and exert control
The problem is that if that group maintains control, they will distort the system to enrich and entrench themselves at the expense of every one else.

No, it would not work
The main reason being that people in general are stupid

This is your main reason? With intelligence being controlled by numerous genes and being normally distributed? You have evidence that there is some special intelligence cutoff that we need to move to direct democracy? I doubt you have even bothered to think about it.

In any case, you're argument is absolutely insufficient. You also need to show that:
1) Politicians as a class are less stupid than the general population. Many would agree that politicians don't differ significantly in intelligence from the general population, especially at the local level. (Although Reagen with Alzheimer's or the 2nd Bush weren't the sharpest tools in the shed)
2) This extra benefit of less stupidity leads to better outcomes for society. Do you have any evidence that the intelligence doesn't go more towards giving politicians extra talent in lying, distorting statistics, creative accounting and other problems? I doubt the study has been done.

Finally you need to address the relative strengths of direct democracy. For instance it is much easier to buy off one politician than it is to buy off half the electorate. Do you really think the problem with the current political system is stupidity or corruption? I would bet that most people (in whatever country) would choose the latter.

Also, do you have any evidence that direct democracy leads to harsher treatment of minorities than other forms of government? I think you are just speculating.

Tell that to the Greeks

The Greeks have already indicated they don't want to pay the debt, they can't pay it back even if they wanted to. Lenders are already taking "voluntary" 50% haircuts. Their problem is dragging out the crisis instead of more or less completely defaulting - Iceland handled the situation much better.

Frankly, I doubt that the United States is in a position to win a potential war with its foreign creditors, considering how much of our manufacturing infrastructure has been sent abroad.

1. The US isn't in a position to be defeated by any other country on the planet - it has nukes. The manufacturing base is not relevant to this discussion.

2. Lenders occasionally use proxy (mostly Western) armies to collect, but the target is usually small developing countries who make the mistake of using their resources for their own internal development (nationalism/socialism) instead of debt repayment or facilitating resource extraction.

3. Lenders more or less already own the US government (one of the roots of the problem) - their lobbyists heavily influence or actually write financial legislation. They control the federal reserve which they use to siphon money out, borrow at near 0% and buying T-Bills at 2% on a massive scale to recapitalize themselves. The problem is that what can't be paid back, won't.

Like all financial crises this one will end with the lenders not getting paid, the uncertainty is in how long it is going to last, who is going to pay and how much.