Before we continue with the Manzi article, I just had to put this up. This is courtesy of TH from a discussion on another site.
In a political arena business power is used to influence politicians, primarily with the goal of to creating barriers to competition or even eliminating competition in markets. This has the effect of retarding many of the benefits of having a free market system. For a competitive free market to flourish what is needed is a government that is powerful enough to resist the pressure of business power so that it can be the voice of the people.
What has really been hurting the US economy for a long time is that businesses have found it more profitable to use their influence over politicians to create regulation and conditions favorable to their interests than to innovate and to compete. The lack of competitive forces at work in health care (really, health care insurance) is one of the more egregious examples of this.
With the recent reversal of Federal campaign finance laws we can only expect to see more of this sort of thing.
A perfect summation of what I have been saying for quite awhile.
12 comments:
>what is needed is a government that is powerful enough to resist the pressure of business power
Sure, it sounds nice, except.. how does one make a government "powerful enough" to resist the pressure of certain interest groups? A government that has the power to dole out favors is a government that is going to be bought, whether by interests you favor, or by interests you don't favor.
You see, I agree with the premise - it's better for businesses to innovate and compete than to lobby the government. But when the government is heavily involved in your particular industry, such that regulatory decisions can significantly affect the future of the business, do you really think that business's are just going to suck it up and accept whatever regulation happens? That is wishful thinking.
This is the big hole in your constant babbling about plutonomy. You correctly recognize that having businesses get significant influence over the government is probably not a good thing, yet you resolutely refuse to examine the structure and incentives that got us to that point. You just stop at "businesses are bad!"
The really obvious solution is to have a govt that can't or at least, doesn't, grant favors to businesses. As long as the tit is there, someone will suck at it.
This is the perfect summation of anything? Seriously? Business power (egad) is eliminating competitive barriers. We need more Voice Of The People! Business has used political connection to further their own interests! This means anti health-care!
Seriously my man, you don't really think you've hit the nail on the head here. Do you?.
By this argument, you say that the gov't needs to be so powerful that it can resist the 'business power'. So powerful that it can also resist the Armenian GALAS lobby? Resist the NRA, or perhaps the NAACP, AARP, and the IDK? By creating that power, you create the entities that feed on that power. The original idea... agree or not (and I do)... was that local decisions are more likely to be in alignment with your ideals. It's your community/county/state.
I am anti big gov't. Others are pro big gov't. They aren't all stupid Mark, as you are not. But some (flaw?) thing in my character says that bigger and bigger gov't becomes less responsive to the needs of its citizens. I hold this as a premise. If you can refute it, I will bow to your logic. If not, then you sir, will be forced to bow. Perhaps not to me.
How can you say that, anon, after the SCOTUS decision yesterday regarding campaign finance? It's quite clear to me where the power resides in this country.
While it's true that some regulations are drafted with the interests of certain entities to the detriment of their competitors, the answer is not deregulation. The answer is to remove the influence of those interested parties and make regulations that are in the interests of the American people.
If you look at two industries that have been heavily deregulated in the last 20 years -- airlines and investment banks -- you'll notice a disturbing trend: these industries have gone through terrible ups and downs. Last year the banks nearly brought the economy down. Airlines have been going bankrupt ever since deregulation.
The answer is not to throw in the towel and let multinational corporations have their way with us. The answer is to fix the process.
The Supreme Court's decision yesterday has essentially legalized public blackmail of politicians and the purchase of judgeships. This will not be good for anyone in the long term. We all benefit from having a fair and impartial legal system, and the injection of corporate cash into judicial elections will destroy the judiciary.
The right is touting this as a victory for free speech, but it's really a victory for large multinational corporations, who owe nothing to the American people. With this decision the Supreme Court is ceding control of American presidential and congressional elections to foreign-owned pharmaceutical firms, oil companies, automobile manufacturers, electronics companies, etc.
Corporations are not human beings. They are artificial legal constructs created to dilute personal responsibility. If a corporation has a "right to free speech" then why not a right to vote? The government regulates the intricacies of corporate finance and legal structures, yet it can't regulate the expenditure of billions of dollars on political issues in the interests of maintaining a fair and impartial judiciary? It is sheer nonsense on the very face of it.
The limits on corporate involvement in political campaigns was instituted a century ago as a result of the abuses of the 1890s. Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, was a major force opposing the corruption that unlimited corporate power engenders. It is truly sad how far the party of Lincoln has fallen.
Truth, I say it because I believe it to be true. The Supreme Court's decision, and your subsequent assertion that Business = Bad because they can afford to buy enough politicians affirms my basic premise. When you concentrate the power in a smaller and smaller group of elite, it becomes easier to corrupt those that have the power. Is it realistic that a corporation (good or evil is meaningless) could bribe every politician down to the city council and county sheriff level? They would have to, if the power structure was less concentrated. If it is your desire to have a strong centralized government, then there are certain tradeoffs that must be made relative to a weak, decentralized goverment. Make your case for a strong centralized government if you want. I've heard many arguments in favor of such a thing. I just think the facts prove the opposite is a better form of government.
blk, I read your post with attention. I don't think I disagree with your post overall. In fact, I may use the 'corporations have a right to vote?' argument if this ever comes up. But just a couple of holes I would nitpick.
Airlines vs investment banks is not a good matchup. Airlines had to actually provide a service in a cutthroat environment that the consumer today fully enjoys. 59$ to Vegas! How can they make money on that deal? An investment bank during the bubble years invented money from thin air. Was Webvan ever worth $30 per share? It didn't matter to the investment bank. My point is, the investment banks actually invented a better way to steal money. The airlines just happened to be in a dying industry at a time of consolidation. The deregulation affected both quite differently.
And, I can argue against Teddy Roosevelt being a Republican -in today's sense-, but that would be a bit off topic....
The Supreme Court's decision yesterday has essentially legalized public blackmail of politicians and the purchase of judgeships.
blk you often have some valuable things to say, and then you go and say something just stooopid, like the above.
If a corporation does not have freedom of speech, then the New York Times, which IS a corporation can be censored under the 1st Amdt. Does that make it ANY clearer?
In a highly regulated business climate, with a willingly intrusive government,OF COURSE it's more profitable to lobby said government to create profit than to cater to customers.
And yet you think the answer is more regulation?
I thought the left was all about leveling the playing field?
Onerous regulations squeeze out smaller businesses, reducing competition for the big fish because the smaller businesses typically cannot afford the expense of complying with all the regs. Big businesses are happy to trade the temporary dip in profit to gain market share when their competition is pushed out of the game.
If a fully regulated market was the true answer to a Utopian society, then the standard of living in the Soviet Union would have been better than ours, and it would never have collapsed.
The truth is, the consumer got no choices, crappy service and bread lines, all in the name of "improving efficiency".
There are always going to be unscrupulous people. I believe that a highly regulated system compounds the damage that they cause, because the tend then to be the only game in town, especially when they're the ones in charge.
blk:
After a very entertaining 3 hours that involved a reading of the SCOTUS majority and minority opinions, a discussion of Aristotle's importance (with my 17 y/o son), and a youtube video of Steve Martin's 'The Great Flydini". I have come to a conclusion: If I were all nine supreme court justices, I would vote 5-4, in favor of the dissenting opinion. This goes against what I assumed I would think. Both sides make a strong case. But, to my amazement, I think that the "liberal" opinion is more justified. huh. Who'd a thunk that?
Juris, the press was specifically exempt from the restrictions of this now overturned law. {Which disturbs me... the government decides who the "press" is, and what they can say? ergo 5-4 and not closer to unanimity} So, no. Your statement makes it no clearer.
Anyone who deigns to weigh in should read the reasoning of both sides and refute their arguments. I provide no additional arguments for or against.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
Anon, that was the point - that the govt could decide who got the press exemption. There was no fundamental logic to that, which of course tends to suit the left as logic is not their forté. This decision eliminates that and IMHO that is a good thing.
If you can find anything persuasive in a Stevens dissent, you are a more 'creative' thinker than I am.
Thank you. Although I consider myself a more 'rational' thinker. Which may only say that I am more creative than you, while still not very creative.
Post a Comment