The trend continues for America to be controlled more and more by big business—who want everything to go according to what is in their interests—meaning their profits.
For a long time this was accomplished by lobbyists. Many industries have their trade associations who maintain offices in Washington because their chief activity is to marshal lobbyists who try to persuade Congressmen and Senators to vote their way. They do this with persuasion, which is completely legal; but also with favors to Congressmen like gifts, trips, and entertainment, which is not legal. Or with promising campaign contributions, which has become legal since the recent Supreme Court decision known as Citizens United.
Here is an article on how industry influence has prevailed over the interests of the public in the case of the Toxic Substances Control Act.
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/10/13/reform-of-toxic-chemicals-law-collapses-as-industry-flexes-its-m/
Here is a bit of the history of efforts to rein in industry influence on federal governmental regulation and law-making. Some progress to reduce the influence of corporate contributions to politicians was made by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, often referred to as the McCain–Feingold Act.
McCain-Feingold was upheld by the courts in a 2003 case known as McConnell v. Federal Elections Commission.
A later ruling (2007), known as Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., created a very big exemption—but the consequences of this supposedly are still up in the air.
Most recently (2010), Citizens United partly overturned McConnell. Now corporate contributions can once again have a great influence on our elections. The party or candidate who has the most money can buy the most TV commercials. That means more persuasion, which is likely to be effective with voters. And those corporate contributions go much more heavily to Republican candidates. (Maybe now some is going to Tea Party candidates, too; I don't have information on that.) Thus corporate money is achieving a more "business-friendly" America and will continue the process of turning our country toward the Right that got such a big boost when the likes of Scalia, Roberts, and Alito gained seats on the Supreme Court.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Showing posts with label goverment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label goverment. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Friday, April 23, 2010
Which Freedoms Are You Concerned About?
Conservative/Right Wing/Tea Party types have been complaining that their freedoms are being taken away by the government.
They have also been known to evoke the Founding Fathers, and claim that the shape (or size, or power) that the government has achieved has strayed far from the vision of the Founding Fathers.
Well, as to the second of those: We now live in a far larger, more complex, and more diverse society than anyone in the late 18th century could have envisioned. This society confronts us with issues that also could not have been foreseen (pollution, derivative financial instruments--just to name a couple). We need (even if evidently not everyone expects) the government to have some involvement with these problems.
Also part of our federal government is a huge intelligence establishment. There are at least three intelligence agencies, the CIA, FBI, and Defense Intelligence Agency. Not only are these agencies huge, but they are very powerful and--worse--secretive. Their operation is hidden from the public and from scrutiny by the public and even, too often, from scrutiny by Congress. These agencies have abused their power by spying on US citizens on US territory, even citizens who there was no valid reason to suspect of any wrongdoing.
It seems that the conservatives are not concerned about these invasions of their privacy. When they talk invasion of their freedoms, they don't care about their privacy--just as long as they can keep their guns.
They have also been known to evoke the Founding Fathers, and claim that the shape (or size, or power) that the government has achieved has strayed far from the vision of the Founding Fathers.
Well, as to the second of those: We now live in a far larger, more complex, and more diverse society than anyone in the late 18th century could have envisioned. This society confronts us with issues that also could not have been foreseen (pollution, derivative financial instruments--just to name a couple). We need (even if evidently not everyone expects) the government to have some involvement with these problems.
Also part of our federal government is a huge intelligence establishment. There are at least three intelligence agencies, the CIA, FBI, and Defense Intelligence Agency. Not only are these agencies huge, but they are very powerful and--worse--secretive. Their operation is hidden from the public and from scrutiny by the public and even, too often, from scrutiny by Congress. These agencies have abused their power by spying on US citizens on US territory, even citizens who there was no valid reason to suspect of any wrongdoing.
It seems that the conservatives are not concerned about these invasions of their privacy. When they talk invasion of their freedoms, they don't care about their privacy--just as long as they can keep their guns.
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Populace and Paradox
The voting faction of the US populace—the electorate—frequently does not seem to think very clearly. Everybody wants government-provided services, and nobody favors taxes. How do they think those services are going to be provided for? Where is the government to get the money it needs to provide services, if not from taxpayers' taxes?
Maybe people should bear in mind two extremes and think about which one they'd like better. On the one hand, Sweden is the very model of the welfare state, with health care and many other services taken care of at government expense. Concomitant with that, taxes in Sweden are high.
You could take Mississippi as the other extreme. Government expenditures, for example on education, are low. As a result, Mississippi ranks low on a lot of measures—education, health of its citizens, etc. Also directly connected, Mississippi has low taxes—and a low standard of living. Maybe when government money is spent, that money circulates and makes everybody more prosperous.
Also, polls show that the populace disapproves of Congress. Congress gets a 17% approval rating. On the other hand, when people were polled for their opinion of their own representative, 45% approved. (And historically, nearly 96% of House members get re-elected.) How can the individual congressmen be good and the collective body be bad? Maybe this has to do with a phenomenon I blogged about before: people decry pork-barrel legislation (or "pork") when some other congressman is doing it. When their own congressman is doing it, it's "bringing home federal funds to our district." I see that phrase in the materials that my own congressman sends to his constituents. A verb declension: He's advocating pork, you're not careful with the people's money, I'm helping my district. (Like "He's a tightwad, you're cheap, I'm thrifty.")
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Maybe people should bear in mind two extremes and think about which one they'd like better. On the one hand, Sweden is the very model of the welfare state, with health care and many other services taken care of at government expense. Concomitant with that, taxes in Sweden are high.
You could take Mississippi as the other extreme. Government expenditures, for example on education, are low. As a result, Mississippi ranks low on a lot of measures—education, health of its citizens, etc. Also directly connected, Mississippi has low taxes—and a low standard of living. Maybe when government money is spent, that money circulates and makes everybody more prosperous.
Also, polls show that the populace disapproves of Congress. Congress gets a 17% approval rating. On the other hand, when people were polled for their opinion of their own representative, 45% approved. (And historically, nearly 96% of House members get re-elected.) How can the individual congressmen be good and the collective body be bad? Maybe this has to do with a phenomenon I blogged about before: people decry pork-barrel legislation (or "pork") when some other congressman is doing it. When their own congressman is doing it, it's "bringing home federal funds to our district." I see that phrase in the materials that my own congressman sends to his constituents. A verb declension: He's advocating pork, you're not careful with the people's money, I'm helping my district. (Like "He's a tightwad, you're cheap, I'm thrifty.")
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
What Is the Function of Government?
I just read a very interesting article in Smithsonian magazine (Oct. 2009 issue). The title is "A World Too New," and the author is Edmund S. Morgan, an emeritus professor of History at Yale. The article has to do with the knowledge and expectations that Columbus had for "the Indies," which affected the outcome of Europeans' early contacts with Western Hemisphere natives.
The entirety of the article is very interesting, but there were two very subordinate thoughts of Morgan's that struck me as very provocative. I've made my riff on one of those thoughts in the previous posting.
The second quote from Morgan paints a picture of the European society from which Columbus came, and which contrasted itself to that which they considered barbarian:
For me, encountering this thought comes not long after I read some discussion, from different persons, about what the proper or legitimate role (or scope, or extent) of government should be. I think Morgan states it well, and succinctly. We have a Constitution and Bill of Rights that were written as they are to help ensure that the weak are not exploited or otherwise harmed by the strong (or more clever, or more ruthless, etc.) But some extreme conservatives and libertarians would not agree with this. I wonder if, if it were put to them, they would even say that we do not need or want the government to protect investors from a Bernie Madoff; or protect consumers from food manufacturers who might want to make and sell unhealthy food.
Well, actually, I think I know the answer to that one. It's easy to condemn a Madoff. Where it's just one individual, it's easy to condemn him. But, when it's corporations, or an industry—why, in that case some people almost seem to be saying that Business can do no wrong. Anti–big government people like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush feel that business must not be hamstrung by government oversight. But the interests of a corporation—usually meaning, in one word, its profits—can and often do conflict with the interest of consumers—who are more numerous. In other words, should or should not the government legitimately protect the majority (the public, or "consumers") from a minority—one corporation or one industry? So much seems to hinge on issues like this, of protecting one group from another. And that is precisely, as Morgan says, one of the central functions of government.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
The entirety of the article is very interesting, but there were two very subordinate thoughts of Morgan's that struck me as very provocative. I've made my riff on one of those thoughts in the previous posting.
The second quote from Morgan paints a picture of the European society from which Columbus came, and which contrasted itself to that which they considered barbarian:
They had strong governments to protect property, to protect good persons from evil ones. . . .
For me, encountering this thought comes not long after I read some discussion, from different persons, about what the proper or legitimate role (or scope, or extent) of government should be. I think Morgan states it well, and succinctly. We have a Constitution and Bill of Rights that were written as they are to help ensure that the weak are not exploited or otherwise harmed by the strong (or more clever, or more ruthless, etc.) But some extreme conservatives and libertarians would not agree with this. I wonder if, if it were put to them, they would even say that we do not need or want the government to protect investors from a Bernie Madoff; or protect consumers from food manufacturers who might want to make and sell unhealthy food.
Well, actually, I think I know the answer to that one. It's easy to condemn a Madoff. Where it's just one individual, it's easy to condemn him. But, when it's corporations, or an industry—why, in that case some people almost seem to be saying that Business can do no wrong. Anti–big government people like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush feel that business must not be hamstrung by government oversight. But the interests of a corporation—usually meaning, in one word, its profits—can and often do conflict with the interest of consumers—who are more numerous. In other words, should or should not the government legitimately protect the majority (the public, or "consumers") from a minority—one corporation or one industry? So much seems to hinge on issues like this, of protecting one group from another. And that is precisely, as Morgan says, one of the central functions of government.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
The Game of Life
I was looking at a full-page magazine ad from The Teaching Company. I've known of this outfit for a while. They periodically send me CDs containing sample material from their courses, and I borrowed one of their courses from the public library. As far as I can judge, their material is authoritative.
This particular ad was headlined "Master the Rules of Competitive Behavior," and was for a course titled "Games People Play: Game Theory in Life, Business, and Beyond." Some of the individual lectures are titled "Practical Applications of Game Theory," "Pure Competition—Constant-Sum Games," "Credibility, Deterrence, and Compellence," "Encouraging Productivity—Incentive Schemes," "Bargaining and Cooperative Games," "Game Theory and Business—Co-optition," and so forth.
I'll admit that maybe I ought to listen to at least some of this course before I base an opinion solely on the ad's copy and the lecture titles. But I think one or two things are obvious, even so.
The last lecture of the course is titled "All the World's a Game." Now, I've often thought that myself. I think a lot of the people who advance themselves and garner a lot of money or power (1) realize the game nature of life, (2) know what the rules of that game are, and (3) play that game skillfully and mercilessly. (This begs for examples. I'd say maybe a Napoleon or some other general, or maybe a Roman emperor who schemed his way to power.)
If I long ago recognized that all of life is a game, why didn't I try to be a successful player of the game? For one thing, recognizing that it's game is not the same thing as being able to play that game for your advantage. Now look at video games (and I must admit I don't play them, so maybe what I have to say is not authoritative): they require certain skills or traits. If the player does not possess these skills or traits to begin with, the game fosters their development by providing reinforcement, a la what we learn about in Psychology 101. I wonder whether playing video games makes people better players of the game of life. I suspect not, for a couple reasons; but it would be getting too far off my track to go there.
Where all this is tending: Looking over the titles of the lectures of the course "Games People Play" explicitly invokes the world of business. This course (or any instruction on how to practically apply game theory) sounds to me a lot like what people are taught in business school: things like how to manipulate employees to get the most out of them, relative to your labor cost (and employees are just another "ingredient" in the product, and employees are fungible--that is, interchangeable: any chair in the company can be filled by any person possessing certain qualifications). How to manipulate your customers, to get them to buy your product. And (when necessary), how to manipulate lawmakers and government regulators so as to enable you to carry on your game-playing in the most favorable environment possible.
My feeling about all this is that it seems cynical to me, first and foremost. Also, it's arrogant. The attitude or assumption is that the bosses (executives and/or those getting their MBAs) are smarter and therefore are fully justified in exploiting people and treating them just like any resource, even an inanimate resource. To say that it’s manipulative would be to restate what I hope I've already established. It even seems to me hostile, aggressive, and evil. Why, in a society that is supposed to be egalitarian, do we accept that some people have the right to manipulate others? Why do we let our government, our bosses, our teachers, our doctors, and even the people to whom we are customers, have secrets from us? And tell us half-truths and untruths? They believe we are not entitled to know this or that (I've blogged about this elsewhere). They know what is good for us (to know and to not know).
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
This particular ad was headlined "Master the Rules of Competitive Behavior," and was for a course titled "Games People Play: Game Theory in Life, Business, and Beyond." Some of the individual lectures are titled "Practical Applications of Game Theory," "Pure Competition—Constant-Sum Games," "Credibility, Deterrence, and Compellence," "Encouraging Productivity—Incentive Schemes," "Bargaining and Cooperative Games," "Game Theory and Business—Co-optition," and so forth.
I'll admit that maybe I ought to listen to at least some of this course before I base an opinion solely on the ad's copy and the lecture titles. But I think one or two things are obvious, even so.
The last lecture of the course is titled "All the World's a Game." Now, I've often thought that myself. I think a lot of the people who advance themselves and garner a lot of money or power (1) realize the game nature of life, (2) know what the rules of that game are, and (3) play that game skillfully and mercilessly. (This begs for examples. I'd say maybe a Napoleon or some other general, or maybe a Roman emperor who schemed his way to power.)
If I long ago recognized that all of life is a game, why didn't I try to be a successful player of the game? For one thing, recognizing that it's game is not the same thing as being able to play that game for your advantage. Now look at video games (and I must admit I don't play them, so maybe what I have to say is not authoritative): they require certain skills or traits. If the player does not possess these skills or traits to begin with, the game fosters their development by providing reinforcement, a la what we learn about in Psychology 101. I wonder whether playing video games makes people better players of the game of life. I suspect not, for a couple reasons; but it would be getting too far off my track to go there.
Where all this is tending: Looking over the titles of the lectures of the course "Games People Play" explicitly invokes the world of business. This course (or any instruction on how to practically apply game theory) sounds to me a lot like what people are taught in business school: things like how to manipulate employees to get the most out of them, relative to your labor cost (and employees are just another "ingredient" in the product, and employees are fungible--that is, interchangeable: any chair in the company can be filled by any person possessing certain qualifications). How to manipulate your customers, to get them to buy your product. And (when necessary), how to manipulate lawmakers and government regulators so as to enable you to carry on your game-playing in the most favorable environment possible.
My feeling about all this is that it seems cynical to me, first and foremost. Also, it's arrogant. The attitude or assumption is that the bosses (executives and/or those getting their MBAs) are smarter and therefore are fully justified in exploiting people and treating them just like any resource, even an inanimate resource. To say that it’s manipulative would be to restate what I hope I've already established. It even seems to me hostile, aggressive, and evil. Why, in a society that is supposed to be egalitarian, do we accept that some people have the right to manipulate others? Why do we let our government, our bosses, our teachers, our doctors, and even the people to whom we are customers, have secrets from us? And tell us half-truths and untruths? They believe we are not entitled to know this or that (I've blogged about this elsewhere). They know what is good for us (to know and to not know).
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
