“What the American people really should feel awkward and defensive about is the level of inequality and excess of political power. Instead of asking ourselves what we can do about Warren Buffett or Bill Gates, we should be asking ourselves about what we can do about the Clintons and the Spitzers. Those who want more and more power should be our biggest concern.” –Arnold Kling, on the rising inequality of political power
Apr10th2008
The problem is corporate America is so in bed with government that these entities (the super rich and government) are pretty much one and the same. Corporate America has the political power.
I might have mentioned this before, but I’ve been told that Bill Gates didn’t have a Microsoft lobby prior to the anti-trust suits that were brought against him. He figured he didn’t need it, because he saw the U.S. as a capitalist country. He’s just here to make software. But he learned that if you don’t dole out the bucks to the politicians in Washington, suddenly government is making things difficult for you. He had no choice but to form a lobbyist organization. Now government makes things easy for him. I’m not blaming him, but now we’re kind of stuck with a system that works against consumers while politicians get rich.
Corporate money (represented by lobbyist money) is a huge problem for our system. Jesse Ventura recently pointed out that politicians care about three things. Number 1-Themselves. Number 2-Their lobbyists. And number three maybe they might start thinking about their constituents. This is a problem.
Of course there is at least one candidate that won’t take lobbyist money. This same guy when he left Congress in ‘88 refused to accept the lucrative Congressional retirement package (he was re-elected in ‘96 I believe). He stands alone and votes against such things as money spent on honorary items for Rosa Parks, instead suggesting to his Congressional colleagues that they take a collection and pay for such things themselves rather than stealing taxpayer money to pay for them. Every year he returns a portion of his Congressional budget to the U.S. treasury ($75K this year). It’s really a staggering display of principle that stands in the face of enormous temptation. I think you know who I’m talking about. There’s at least one person that really works for the people. The rest follow the Ventura pattern.
Jon,
First, I have absolutely no idea who you are talking about. Who is this honest Congressman? Does he live with the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus on a unicorn ranch?
Second, you can’t blame corporations for looking out for their best interests because that’s what their supposed to do. Politicians are supposed to be looking out for the best interests of the people who put them into office. I believe we should be angrier at the politicians who put corporate bribes ahead of their constituents and not at the corporations.
One of the reasons that I am a libertarian is that I believe no matter who you put into office, they will ultimately become corrupted to some degree because of the immense power they are given. They only way to keep politicians from abusing their power is to take it away. The only law the government should have on capitalism and trade is keeping defense contractors from selling military technology on the open market. All other commercial and corporate activity should remain unregulated, because most of the corporate regulations in this country are rigged to benefit those corporations wealthy enough to bribe Congressmembers and to punish any potential competition for these corporations.
People who bitch about corporations like to use the word capitalism like it’s a synonym for devil worship. If anything, government writing laws to discourage if not outlaw corporate competition is actually anti-capitalist.
INTOO makes a good point. One that was spelled out further by Russell Roberts in this great article:
Another contradiction I see is how the same people who complain most about corruption in politics are the ones who advocate more control of the economy by government…causing an endless loop. Libertarian Will Wilkinson spells out this contradiction here:
This is why the limited government view makes sense to me. If the politicians don’t have the power, its harder for corruption to have its effect.
I agree with pretty much everything you guys have said. INTOO, I’m talking about Ron Paul. He does sound unreal.
I take minor exception though with focusing on politicians and ignoring corporations. As I said, Bill Gates had little choice. Some corporations do this begrudgingly, and I just assume that others don’t.
Suppose a young new Congressman enters Washington. He intends to fight for the people, but he’s immediately tempted by big bucks from people representing corporations. Not everyone has the resolve of Ron Paul, so slowly but surely he relents a little here and a little there, and before long he’s doing what all the rest are doing. Now, who’s to blame. Blame the politician. I’m fine with that. But don’t ignore the corporation.
Now, who’s to blame. Blame the politician. I’m fine with that. But don’t ignore the corporation.
Agreed. Both have fault…the politician and the corporation. But I believe the ultimate fault falls on the power the politicians themselves have. As Charles Krauthammer so succinctly put it:
HP,
The Roberts and Wilkinson articles greatly illustrated my argument. Thank you. I think Wilkinson is correct in implying that corporations didn’t create the government bribery cycle but that government created the opportunity for bribery by assuming such an intrusive role in our economy and the marketplace. It’s kind of the “she was asking for it” argument, except Congress is the slut in the hoochie skirt, four-inch stiletto heels and peek-a-boo blouse.
Jon,
Sorry I forgot about Ron Paul. I’m so used to hearing about the massive duopoly (liberal and conservative) in this country I forgot about that one libertarian Congressmember. But pay close attention to the fact that Ron Paul believes the reduction of government corruption can only be accomplished through the reduction of government power.
While corporations cannot be ignored for their part in the legal bribery game, the far guiltier party is the politicians who accept these bribes in return for laws rigged in the corporations’ favor. I just graduated from college, and like most American colleges I am no stranger to the all the liberal anti-corporation bullshit spewed by idiots with Ph.D.s in Stupidity. Time and time again I’ve argued with professors who are to the left of Lenin and the young students stupid enough to fall for this empty rhetoric. So I guess anti-corporation and anti-capitalism rants are a pet peeve of mine.
The concept of public trust is a cornerstone of any representative democracy, especially the United States. It is the notion that we the public have democratically selected people to represent our best interests in our nation’s legislative body, and that we wholeheartedly place our faith in them, that they will take the public trust seriously. Have you ever heard of public trust being applied to corporations or capitalism? Of course not!
Capitalism is based on mutual self-interest. When I buy a can of soda with a dollar, it is because I wanted that soda more than I wanted my dollar, and the merchant wanted my dollar more than she wanted her soda. I don’t give the merchant money because I’m concerned about her financial well-being. Adversely, the merchant didn’t give me the soda because she’s concerned about me being thirsty. Somehow we’ve come to a point where Congress has become a game of self-interest, and the concept of public trust has become a punchline followed by the collective sneers and chuckles from elected government officials.
At least with capitalism we get what we pay for. With government, we are taxed and taxed and taxed some more and the level of public services remain half-assed with politicians voting themselves salary hikes and tax dollars mysteriously disappearing. Last week the New York City Council was found guilty of allocating $17 million in city funds to 18 community organizations that didn’t exist. All we hear about in the news these days is misappropriated funds among government officials and government corruptions going to the highest level.
HP is correct to say that most of the people who bemoan government corruption advocate for government to grow larger and more intrusive upon our personal and economic affairs. They want checks and balances in place to provide oversight for the government officials’ vast powers, and when that doesn’t work, they want checks and balances for the checks and balances. Wouldn’t it just be simpler and less expensive to just limit the power of these government officials? At least Ron Paul thinks so.
By the way, the reason I’m so familiar with leftist arguments such as those waged by professors is because I too fell for their bullshit and at one time considered myself to be a marxist. But various events took place in my life in which these uber-liberal theories turned out to be full of holes.
When I think of all the New York Communist Party meetings I used to attend when I was 19, it makes me want to vomit.