"The typical citizen has the benefit of being relatively uninformed and does not need to face the tradeoff details, so of course they want things that they think will benefit / protect themselves without knowing the broader implications or how it will cost them. Whereas the politicians are forced to understand that no policy is free and/or "negative consequence free".Thoughts?
I used to facilitate customer focus groups once in awhile to try and understand which vehicle features /performance were valued by the customers. The biggest challenge was helping the customer to understand that nothing was free. Without trade offs, costs, etc... They wanted everything.
I think the typical citizen is happily ignorant, where as the politicians need to face a complicated reality of facts and likely consequences." G2A
Raising social involvement, self awareness and self improvement topics, because our communities are the sum of our personal beliefs, behaviors, action or inaction. Only "we" can improve our family, work place, school, city, country, etc.
Saturday, May 9, 2015
Rich and Powerful Get Their Way
It is a nice day and I have to start painting my house, so I am going to be a lazy blogger. Eric is looking for a conspiracy, and I am sure it will yield some interesting discussions. Here was my first thought.
"The typical citizen has the benefit of being relatively uninformed and does not need to face the tradeoff details, so of course they want things that they think will benefit / protect themselves without knowing the broader implications or how it will cost them. Whereas the politicians are forced to understand that no policy is free and/or "negative consequence free"."
ReplyDeleteI don't know that the information or the lack thereof was an issue in the Black piece. The problem is that the rich have the power to set policy in wtays the benefit themselves which are quite indifferent to the benefit of others. The problem so often is that the negative effects fall on those who are politically weak and who are unable to defend their interests effectively.
--Hiram
Please give some examples.
ReplyDeleteHere is another thought I shared.
ReplyDelete"unions represent a lot more people than the uber- wealthy"
I guess I disagree, the Koch boys, the Cargill Owners, Glen Taylor, etc have a very vested interest in keeping the American businesses we rely on for jobs profitable and viable in a very competitive Global Market. And as far as I can tell, no one is forced to work for these people. So I think the business owners of the world represent a lot of American citizens.
And I understand your need to vilify the Kochs to promote the myth, but please remember that that selfish family gives a huge of money back to our communities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_family_foundations
By the way, I don't disagree that Unions did some great things. However they also now support a lot of people being paid more than they would earn in a free market. And that burden is being for by the tax payers, which is a huge number of people.
Here is a good example.
ReplyDeleteObama and Trade Deal
People like me who work for American Manufacturing companies understand that trade deals like this are good for American workers.
ReplyDeleteWhere as many typical consumers who insist on buying foreign goods would say this is bad for workers...
American citizens aren't the only ones happily ignorant. Politicians are happily and WILLFULLY ignorant of the effect of their policy choices. I don't think the rich are that big a problem, really. It is the powerful (our politicians) that are the enemy of all of us.
ReplyDeleteJohn, did you read the column and do you understand the use of data and statistics?
ReplyDelete"There were plenty of cases in which policies supported by the wealthy or the big lobbies became law even though they were opposed by the popular majority. (He mentioned a few, including the North American Free Trade Agreement, the Bush tax cuts and the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall law — which was widely blamed for facilitating the economic collapse of 2007-8 — that were adopted even though they were opposed by the majority of Americans.)
But they found no cases in which a policy with majority support was adopted without additional support by wealthy Americans or organized influence. That’s the key to Gilens’ statement that “only people with money or organized influence matter.”
I don't think the Koch brothers are spending nearly a billion $ for nothing.
I think "opposed by the popular majority" seems a bit biased and unproven.
ReplyDeleteNAFTA: Really...
Tax Cuts: Who opposes tax cuts...
Repeal: No Idea... And who blames it? Mother Jones...
So continuing the Bush tax cuts for most citizens wasn't popular with the majority? Really?
I think the Koch Brothers spend the money to help insure America stays Globally competitive and their employees can keep earning pay checks.
Just curious, why do you think they give so much to other causes? To make a profit?
Please remember that these two are like Buffett and Gates. They are getting older and trying to do something good for America. (ie legacy) Unfortunately since you believe in giving people other people's money, you see it as something bad... Us pro-capitalism folks appreciate their efforts.
I think we as a country put WAY too much in polls that, for the most part, are designed and publicized to CREATE public opinion rather than measure it. And beyond that, I don't give a rodent's derriere what your opinion is about something as complex as NAFTA, for example, I only care what your thoughtful analysis reveals to you, that I need to know. Asking 1000 random people "Do you think everybody should have free health care, yes or no?" is not a thorough and enlightened policy discussion.
ReplyDeleteAs for the rich "buying influence," I just plain disagree. First off, if the government would stick to those things it is supposed to do, there would be a lot less influence needed and a lot less buying of it. Second, most corporations (and to a much larger degree, unions), don't like to buy something that doesn't yet exist, rather, they buy something that already exists. That is, they don't contribute to campaigns or spend lobbying dollars to convince a Congressman or President to do "what they want," but rather they contribute to that candidate who has already promised (or better yet is working towards) something they consider beneficial.
And finally, "an idea is not responsible for the people that believe in it." Just because the Koch brothers (or the ACLU, Barbra Streisand or the SEIU) back something, doesn't make it a bad idea.
"I think the Koch Brothers spend the money to help insure America stays Globally competitive and their employees can keep earning pay checks."
ReplyDeleteThe Koch Brothers spend money to further their own self-interest. If you're counting on a billionaire to speak for middle- or lower-class interests, you're likely going to be disappointed.
Maybe / Maybe Not
ReplyDeleteWhy do they give so much to other charities?
No profit motive there...
I'm sure they give money to causes they are interested in. That doesn't mean, though, that they represent my interests.
ReplyDeleteYet it does not mean that they don't represent your interests either.
ReplyDeleteIf one supports private property rights, cost effective government, a strong safe America, etc, one likely has a lot in common with them.
"Yet it does not mean that they don't represent your interests either."
ReplyDeleteMaybe. But that doesn't mean that we should turn over our political system to them and count on their benevolence.
Just curious, do you think the folks on the Left represent your interests or those of your family any better?
ReplyDeleteBy this I mean those who want Public Employees paid more than market, hard to terminate questionable employees, enabled with ineffective work rules, etc.
And those who want tax payer funds distributed to those who choose to not learn, work, contribute.
Those who strive for more government regulation and programs in an effort to protect everyone from everything and reducing the choices we have as consumers.
Please remember that all of these extra costs are applied to us tax payers and take money from our children. Worse yet they make the USA less competitive in the world market.
In my view the Left is just as dangerous or more so than the pro-business folk.
Turn over our system to them?
ReplyDeleteNow we still have the right to vote for whichever politician we support? Or has something changed recently?
"Just curious, do you think the folks on the Left represent your interests or those of your family any better?"
ReplyDeleteBetter than the Kochs, but overall, no.
The problem is that by blowing away campaign finance restrictions, we've essentially turned over our elections (and by extension, our political system) over to really wealthy folks. There's a reason why all the Republicans running for President are making rounds to the Kochs, Sheldon Adelson, etc. And folks like them (and those on the other side of the aisle) can dump hundreds of millions of dollars in without any disclosure.
"reducing the choices we have as consumers"
ReplyDeleteDeregulation, for starters, doesn't ensure increased competition or other benefits for the consumer. For example, take a look at the airline industry. 70% of the airline trips in this country are controlled by four carriers. Banking deregulation was a key factor in the 2008 market collapse, both in allowing companies to make unduly risky bets and in allowing "too big to fail companies" to exist. There are plenty of other examples, too -- media companies, trucking, etc. -- where we've seen reduction in competition, not increases.
Now you do realize that Obama spent as much as Romney last time. Right? And Dayton way out spent Johnson...
ReplyDeleteBy the way, as soon as those 4 carriers start price gouging, some smaller airline will swoop in with lower fares and take business away from them.
Trucking? There are thousands of small trucking firms...
It is not about how much $ the candidates raise, it is about who is giveng the $ and what they expect in return.
ReplyDeleteYour inability to see how this might be problematic, John, is very surprising. Maybe because you have similar political views to the Koch brothers and many other big $ donors.
Her is a link about how big $ giving is becoming more dominant with each election.
The Political One Percent of the One Percent in 2014: Mega Donors Fuel Rising Cost of Elections
One example where $ is buying influence is regulating wall street. From what I read current regulation is inadequate amd could lead to another crash.
"Now you do realize that Obama spent as much as Romney last time. Right? And Dayton way out spent Johnson..."
ReplyDeleteSure. There's way too much money in politics, period.
"By the way, as soon as those 4 carriers start price gouging, some smaller airline will swoop in with lower fares and take business away from them."
That flies in the face of three decades of history of airline deregulation.
"Trucking? There are thousands of small trucking firms..."
There have been huge changes in the trucking industry since deregulation. Mid-size tucking companies have largely been squeezed out, leaving huge companies and small firms or independent owner-operators -- and wages have sharply declined in the industry.
My point is that both sides apparently have big money available, so just think of their spending sprees as some great jobs programs that occur every 2 years.
ReplyDeleteDo you really want all that waste back in our system? Planes flying half full, people choosing table clothes, etc. I am a happy gold status frequent flier and rarely have any air travel problems. Forbes Airlines
And my company transports a great deal of equipment via railroads.
Salon Trucking I am still confused though... If the jobs are so terrible, why do people still work there?
My guess is that they still pay better than alternatives. And please remember that the Union slow downs and strikes cost American businesses a small fortune over the last 12 months.
I thought the Salon piece was interesting because many of the wealthiest folks in SW MN are people who started and operate small and mid-size trucking firms.
"My point is that both sides apparently have big money available, so just think of their spending sprees as some great jobs programs that occur every 2 years."
ReplyDeleteI'd rather not have a political system that goes to the highest bidder.
"Do you really want all that waste back in our system?"
I'm just responding to your assertion that deregulation increases consumer choice. That isn't always true, and deregulation can also have negative impacts. Like anything, you have to balance the good with the bad, but you talk about deregulation like it's a panacea.
I agree with both of your points for the most part.
ReplyDeleteEspecially if getting the money out would reduce the number of attack ads we need to watch or listen to.
We seem to be at odds, as might be expected from the sturm and drang put up by the Left, over the Citizens United decision. All it did was to allow corporations to play in the same space as the unions, liberal 501C4s, and millionaires like George Soros. They can't compete, of course. Just look at the overwhelming spending advantage liberal Democrat candidates have.
ReplyDeleteIt also sounds like the implication here is that somehow all this big corporate money corrupts politicians (but big union money never does, no :-^). I say that that outright corruption of that kind is pretty rare. Far more common is spending money to elect somebody that's too stupid to see through the lies he's being fed. How else can you account for things like "shovel ready jobs" and "race to the top" being funded, when any fool ought to know better?
I'm opposed to all big money. (incidentally, for all the wailing conservatives make about George Soros ignores the fact he'd barely be in the top 10 Republican super-donors)
ReplyDeleteReally? You have the list, and it includes all of the "secret" contributions and laundered money?
ReplyDeleteWe know what the Soros-affiliated 501(c)4s have spent in recent cycles and it's much smaller than Koch or Adelson -affiliated spending.
ReplyDelete"We" does not include you and me. I know no such thing, nor where to find reliable information on such.
ReplyDelete501(c)4s have to disclose their spending, not their donors. Opensecrets.org has searchable DBs on said spending.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the info. A little quick math, though, tells me what I suspected. Top individual and organizational contributors are Democrats/liberals. And totals for Democrats/liberals exceed that for Conservatives/Republicans. Individuals it is:
ReplyDelete$166,864,715 to $119,790,827
Organizations it is a whopping:
$428,957,126 to $96,921,321
The #3,#6 and #7 organizations are public employee unions-- the NEA, SEIU and AFT. Koch is #14.
Overall, it's just a little less than a 3:1 money advantage for Democrats. In Minnesota it's higher.
I don't think you're looking at the info correctly:
ReplyDeleteWell, I copied the top donors in each category (individual and organizations) into a spreadsheet and then summed up the Dem and GOP numbers. How can that be looked at differently?
ReplyDeleteOK, I will grant that if you pick one or two line items you can say that Kochs gave more than Soros, or somesuch, but I think it's the totality of the respective spending that matters. Is there any doubt that the 4:1 or 5:1 money advantage enjoyed by Mark Dayton and Al Franken played a role in their victories?
For some reason, my links didn't come through right on my last post.
ReplyDeleteOn the federal level, Republicans had far more money on their side in 2014.
http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/
And in 501(c) spending -- the type where folks like the Kochs and Soros operate -- Republicans have outspent Democrats by at least a 2:1 ratio in the last three election cycles.
http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/nonprof_summ.php?cycle=All&type=viewpt
Yes, it's true that Minnesota has seen the opposite trend. I would argue that it's been the weakness of the GOP-nominated candidates that has kept the big spenders on the sidelines.
I saw that page on the link, and didn't quite understand it-- that is, it didn't jibe with what I see. I switched the display to averages, and it made more sense. House Republicans spent more than House Democrats, but that makes sense when you consider there are more of them, many facing "sacrificial lamb" Democrat challengers. The Senate shows a different story, with only 33 or so races, all hotly contested and the Senate more or less evenly divided, Democrats outspent Republicans by an average of 2:1. And I'm not sure those numbers tell the whole story, when you look at Minnesota's lopsided campaign finance. I know that DFL "soft money" (uncounted) alone was almost 4 times what our Republican candidate was allowed to spend TOTAL.
ReplyDelete