Everyone Seems to be Lurching on the Doomer Scale

[FRED]

Re: Everyone Seems to be Lurching on the Doomer Scale

What are you waiting for c1ue? I posted some of the most obvious examples in the text that you quoted. You clearly have no mind for objectivity of any sort.

We have noticed a steady decline in civility here over the last few months.

Please be reminded of the cardinal rule here at itulip.com: respect.

Members will respect each other as comrades in arms.

Discuss topics, not each other.

Tip: If you are about to post a comment and a sentence contains the word "you" then strongly consider editing the post.

[jk]

Re: Everyone Seems to be Lurching on the Doomer Scale

We have noticed a steady decline in civility here over the last few months.

Please be reminded of the cardinal rule here at itulip.com: respect.

Members will respect each other as comrades in arms.

Discuss topics, not each other.

Tip: If you are about to post a comment and a sentence contains the word "you" then strongly consider editing the post.

+1

the only reason i opened this thread was that i noticed a post by fred. i started reading at post 1, and the issues raised - especially whether corporations should have the rights of people - are important. but i quickly just began to skim, and then to skip, posts as the information content deteriorated.

[c1ue]

Re: Everyone Seems to be Lurching on the Doomer Scale

I posted some of the most obvious examples in the text that you quoted.

You posted examples of regulations being destroyed, not actual size of government in terms of employees or spending being reduced.

Regulations are created and destroyed every day. Specific changes in regulations do not correlate with size of government - only in overall context can the effect be gauged.

Examination of any government regulation handbook shows unquestionably that regulations increase over time.

[Ghent12]

Re: Everyone Seems to be Lurching on the Doomer Scale

FRED, noted.

You posted examples of regulations being destroyed, not actual size of government in terms of employees or spending being reduced.

Well I can't do much against obstinate but incorrect assertions. All of those examples resulted directly in reductions of time, effort, employees, and/or spending by the respective government in significant quantities. After those regulations were axed, the respective government was refocused. To think otherwise is to be factually incorrect, and to think that later increases in those same sectors or simultaneous increases in other sectors somehow negates the contention is also to be factually incorrect.

As I said before, the term "liberalization" exists for a reason. The thinking that governments cannot be made smaller without their own destruction is a political theory that doesn't hold water in reality. Just a simple Google search reveals dozens of past, recent-past, and current efforts that have succeeded in some capacity.

Yes because money is speech in this country. The sheer amount of money the corps have already influences the government far to much. It is blatantly foolish to give them any more power. We need more restrictions on them not less!!

Well the transfer of money is called "commerce," and it is generally needed in some capacity to achieve any level of speech that could be considered "free." Let's take your second sentence through its logical evolution--Corporations have money and influence the government, so you want to give the government more power? Will that not simply lead to the corporations having control of a stronger government? My preference is not to give corporations more power, but to give everyone commerce and speech that is as unrestricted as possible.


The choice is simple for me: I cannot escape government if I don't like what it's doing, but I can escape any given corporation or large set of corporations that I don't like. Therefore I would be content with a government focused solely on protecting freedom of commerce and freedom of speech, and doing little else. When you give government power to restrict commerce and speech, you are basically giving corporations that same power due to the endless cycle of regulatory capture, government capture, and the revolving door between top government positions and top private sector positions.


Ultimately someone or some collection of people will have a great deal of power, disproportionately higher than the vast majority of others. This has been relatively constant throughout history. Given this nigh-inevitability, it is my preference to have the private sector collect most of that power surplus since the private sector is ironically more accountable to the public than the public sector. Barring special situations, forced upon us by the public sector such as mandatory insurance of a given type, we are generally free to choose our private sector partners and that places real power in the hands of the public at large. When a Representative does something that most of his/her constituents wouldn't like if they knew about it, there's almost nothing to stop them because we're basically forced into a "lesser of two evils" choice--but when the public catches wind of a problem with something they buy, change is almost instantaneous on both the supplier and the demand side.

[mesyn191]

Re: Everyone Seems to be Lurching on the Doomer Scale

Well the transfer of money is called "commerce," and it is generally needed in some capacity to achieve any level of speech that could be considered "free."

Yes that isn't in dispute. Some commerce in media for political purposes is fine, so long as its kept small. Its when one group gets too much power via cash and credit accumulation and then uses that power over say several decades to favor themselves to the detriment of most everyone else by slowly influencing the government that you've got problems. Take to its extreme the old government is suborned entirely and a "corporatist" state, which is just a hop skip and a jump away from being a fascist one, is formed.

Let's take your second sentence through its logical evolution--Corporations have money and influence the government, so you want to give the government more power?

Oh come on I said they have _too much_ money and influence. Them having a little is fine, but just a little. Its far too easy and common for them to abuse more than a little given the types of people who tend to run a major corp these days. They view laws as something to be gotten around rather than something to be respected.

[Ghent12]

Re: Everyone Seems to be Lurching on the Doomer Scale

mesyn191, I don't find too much disagreement with what you're saying. In fact we are essentially saying the same thing when we espouse our disdain for capture of the government by corporations. That leaves us two obvious choices on where to focus our political attention--on government or on the corporations that capture them. It is a matter of principle that forces me to choose placing my political attention on government for its failures since government is supposed to be accountable to me.

Additionally, we have to consider where the power/wealth will accumulate given the near-certainty that it will be accumulated. What end state do we desire? I don't recall a government that was both very powerful and benign, so I'd like to stop power accumulation there if possible.

[mesyn191]

Re: Everyone Seems to be Lurching on the Doomer Scale

OK so we disagree on implementation. Corporate personhood is IMO way to much and I'd like to see them restricted further, much further when it comes to donations and such. That likely won't happen of course.

Governments can and will be corrupt over time, but so long as things don't get too out of hand (ie. straight up collapse) then they can be reformed and ultimately they serve the people, so everyone would benefit from a strong government that worked well. Its true those don't come around very often, but we have had that here in the US. IMO up until the early 70's our government worked very well and AFAIK wealth was more evenly distributed then when compared to now. I'd rather more money be in the hands of Avg. Joe Sixpack then Richie Rich when all is said and done. If we could just get the damn greedy and corrupt people out of office who keep trying to scratch eachother's backs for favors and such I think it'd work well again.

[Verrocchio]

Re: Everyone Seems to be Lurching on the Doomer Scale

The differences of opinion in this thread are inescapably clear; no need to continue restating them. Are there any points of agreement? I am particularly interested if c1ue and Ghent12 would agree with these two:

1. Oligarchy is an abhorrent form of governance.

2. If reasonable concern exists that society is creeping toward oligarchy steps should be taken to halt it, because oligarchy, once it has taken hold, is difficult to loosen in the extreme.

[DaveGillie]

Re: Everyone Seems to be Lurching on the Doomer Scale

Corps aren't people, they're legal constructs of fiction designed to make money and shield the owners from financial blow back. That is it. Giving them full rights of personhood isn't some principled stance of the Constitution and rights and ideology, its pro FIRE BS that gives the people at the top who've fucked everything up even more power.

I think you've discerned THE ELEMENT that defines the problem with Corps, NOT that they are designed to make money, but that they have this extraordinary power that no other people have. - limited liability!!

I'd say focus on THAT problem and fix it,

then you and others would realize that (abscense that x power) Corporations ARE just groups of PEOPLE like any other and therefore would deserve the same protections/rights as any other people.

ie you conflict with others on this because others know full well groups of people deserve same rights as individuals, the problem is they don't realzie this particular grouping of people do not have the same rights, they have EXTRA rights (and again, those extra rights are the problem, NOT that Corporations are or or not, people).

[shiny!]

Re: Everyone Seems to be Lurching on the Doomer Scale

I think you've discerned THE ELEMENT that defines the problem with Corps, NOT that they are designed to make money, but that they have this extraordinary power that no other people have. - limited liability!!

I'd say focus on THAT problem and fix it,

then you and others would realize that (abscense that x power) Corporations ARE just groups of PEOPLE like any other and therefore would deserve the same protections/rights as any other people.

ie you conflict with others on this because others know full well groups of people deserve same rights as individuals, the problem is they don't realzie this particular grouping of people do not have the same rights, they have EXTRA rights (and again, those extra rights are the problem, NOT that Corporations are or or not, people).

Corporations are chartered by States. States have the power to revoke corporate charters. When a corporation does severe and persistant harm to the citizenry, whether it be financial or environmental, the citizens can and should pressure their state to revoke that company's charter. This solution is already on the books and completely bypasses the issue of whether or not a corporation is a "person".

Revoking the charter of a large corporation wouldn't be easy to do, but it's easier for people to organize and have an impact on their State government than on the Federal Oligarchy.

[mesyn191]

Re: Everyone Seems to be Lurching on the Doomer Scale

Getting a mega corps charter revoked is nigh impossible though. They have to fuck up maaaaasively for it to even have a remote chance of happening. Hell BP didn't get their charter revoked and they caused tens of billions of damages far in excess of what they paid out.

Small corps who don't have lots of cash get boned of course if they step out of line. Its all about the money.

[c1ue]

Re: Everyone Seems to be Lurching on the Doomer Scale

Well I can't do much against obstinate but incorrect assertions. All of those examples resulted directly in reductions of time, effort, employees, and/or spending by the respective government in significant quantities. After those regulations were axed, the respective government was refocused. To think otherwise is to be factually incorrect, and to think that later increases in those same sectors or simultaneous increases in other sectors somehow negates the contention is also to be factually incorrect.

You keep saying this or that causes reductions; I've asked and continue to ask for actual data.

Without data, your comments are pure ideology.

1. Oligarchy is an abhorrent form of governance.

2. If reasonable concern exists that society is creeping toward oligarchy steps should be taken to halt it, because oligarchy, once it has taken hold, is difficult to loosen in the extreme.

I agree with this, but the substance of disagreement is that Ghent12 believes corporations freely and legally able to donate money and thus openly influence the political process is some type of fundamental right, whereas I believe there is no such right not to mention the further enabling of oligarchic processes.

That leaves us two obvious choices on where to focus our political attention--on government or on the corporations that capture them. It is a matter of principle that forces me to choose placing my political attention on government for its failures since government is supposed to be accountable to me.

You'll note I've never said you were a tool of the corporations, despite your (to me) bizarre advocacy of expansion of corporate political rights.

It is also completely clear that you think that:

1) Corporations cannot be successfully regulated by the government
2) Government cannot exercise independence and thus be able to perform regulation

Therefore the only solution is to shrink government - i.e. Starve the Beast

I disagree completely.

There have been regular episodes in the United States where people of principle, both individuals and in groups, acted to regulate corporations more strongly and/or acted to strengthen government's independence. These include the top level actions by Andrew Jackson and Theodore Roosevelt, as well as grass roots efforts like Prohibition (never said the acts were all correct) as well as the Progressive political movement in the Great Depression which resulted in the Pecora hearings, Glass Steagall, and so forth.

It can be done. It has been done.

And as I've noted before: the entire Starve the Beast political movement today has naked roots going to oligarchs.

Economically it makes no sense.

Progressively it makes no sense.

[shiny!]

Re: Everyone Seems to be Lurching on the Doomer Scale

Getting a mega corps charter revoked is nigh impossible though. They have to fuck up maaaaasively for it to even have a remote chance of happening. Hell BP didn't get their charter revoked and they caused tens of billions of damages far in excess of what they paid out.

Small corps who don't have lots of cash get boned of course if they step out of line. Its all about the money.

Do you know if there was any attempt by anybody to get BP's charter revoked? I'm not quarreling with you, just asking.

[Ghent12]

Re: Everyone Seems to be Lurching on the Doomer Scale

You keep saying this or that causes reductions; I've asked and continue to ask for actual data.

Without data, your comments are pure ideology.

First there was the strawman that governments cannot shrink without their own destruction, then there was a call for historic examples which supposedly didn't exist, and now there's a call for "actual data," which I suppose means detailed charts and so forth. Not only is that not my forte, but I am going to take this opportunity to leave this little game where the goalpost continuously moves. "Liberalization;" look it up.

There have been regular episodes in the United States where people of principle, both individuals and in groups, acted to regulate corporations more strongly and/or acted to strengthen government's independence. These include the top level actions by Andrew Jackson and Theodore Roosevelt, as well as grass roots efforts like Prohibition (never said the acts were all correct) as well as the Progressive political movement in the Great Depression which resulted in the Pecora hearings, Glass Steagall, and so forth.

It can be done. It has been done.

It can be done, sure. That doesn't mean it should be done. In the long run, government will be perverted by special interests once the public spotlight moves onto the next Issue du Jour, effectively nullifying the accomplishments of those who both meant and acted rightly in utilizing government for genuine good. The slow-speed reaction time for the public spotlight, which is government's impetus to correct what is wrong, is no match for the speed of the market in most cases.

Just look at the current situation critically. Are you satisfied with the current campaign finance formula? Do you know how and why it is the way it is? Sending a message is like consuming alcohol or drugs in at least one way in my opinion; you'll never, ever stop it unless you're willing to go to insane lengths to do so (i.e. Chinese mass executions). You simply can't stop some human impulses and desires.

[c1ue]

Re: Everyone Seems to be Lurching on the Doomer Scale

First there was the strawman that governments cannot shrink without their own destruction, then there was a call for historic examples which supposedly didn't exist, and now there's a call for "actual data," which I suppose means detailed charts and so forth. Not only is that not my forte, but I am going to take this opportunity to leave this little game where the goalpost continuously moves. "Liberalization;" look it up.

You were the one who said it can happen.

I've asked for evidence.

4 times now you've put forth generalities rather than any actual facts.

The only fact you've put forward was the overturning of specific regulations - which I pointed out is impossible to correlate with actual overall government shrinkage. Thus your specific examples were not accompanied by data - you assumed that the changes in these regulations meant shrinkage of government when in reality there are multiple outcomes - only one of which would involve actual shrinkage.

These many possible outcomes include change of charter but no change in actual spending or manpower (see FBI before and after Prohibition) and redeployment of human and budget assets into new or existing other departments, as well as other variations.

By your own admission government is not like corporations. There is no profit motive, thus no need for mass layoffs - a failed or changed arm in government isn't axed in the manner of a failed or changed division in a corporation.

It can be done, sure. That doesn't mean it should be done. In the long run, government will be perverted by special interests once the public spotlight moves onto the next Issue du Jour, effectively nullifying the accomplishments of those who both meant and acted rightly in utilizing government for genuine good. The slow-speed reaction time for the public spotlight, which is government's impetus to correct what is wrong, is no match for the speed of the market in most cases.

Again, I disagree.

While there is a momentum for corporations to attempt to subvert government, equally there is a momentum for people to fight said corporate influence.

If the situation were truly only one way, we would have failed under the weight of corporatism literally a hundred years ago: the corporations in the late 1800s and early 1900s were even more of a factor than they are today.

J P Morgan (the conglomerate as well as the person) at the turn of the century, for example, was far larger in proportion to the US economy than even entire sectors like the oil industry today. Between Frick, Morgan, and Harriman, TR got more than $2M in campaign contributions for his 1904 Presidential campaign.

To put this in perspective, US GDP in 1904 was something like $25.7 billion. $2 million is 0.0078% of the entire GDP of the United States in 1904.

In contrast Obama's approximately $750M in campaign contributions in 2008 totaled only 0.0051% of US GDP.

Clearly the direction of regulatory capture is not one way.