Rick Perry: The Best Little Whore in Texas
This is disgusting. The ability of personal influences to sway this man's leadership exemplifies what is wrong with this political system. The thing is, he is certainly not the only one and the Republicans are certainly not the only party guilty.
To me, this is the CORE issue of what is wrong with our country today. The fact our politicians can be bought and paid for by a small minority of constituents/corporations that have deep pockets and motives that go against the larger voting public is THE example of what is broken in our political system today.
But, how can we fix this? It is human nature to fight for your own best interest and to help out your friends, so I think that it is ridiculous to think that some sort of crony capitalism won't exist in perpetuity. However, it is a tragedy that companies are now allowed to run political ads for candidates they want; that the media is controlled by a few rich people that have their own rich friends with their own special interests; and that you can almost guarantee that any piece of legislation put forth either benefits a large campaign contributor or close friend, or it provides a loophole for those same cronies and hurts their competitors.
In an age where transparency is much easier to have with the wealth and ability to spread information, why do we still have such a problem with this?
I had this discussion with another friend recently. I feel (as the wild-eyed free-market right-wing extremist capitalist that I am), this is a natural result of how much government has inserted itself into business.
ReplyDeleteThe ONLY reason we have lobbyists in Washington is because the Government has such a HUGE influence on laws, regulations, rules, etc. Companies hire lobbyists to try an influence lawmakers into changing regulations and rules that will be beneficial to itself and harmful to its competitors. This is wrong. If Government has a smaller role in the market, there would be no need for companies to spend money trying to change the rules and instead would focus their funds on providing a better product.
Like you said, both sides are equally guilty of this, and I want to emphasize that we agree on this point. The problem is, how do you solve it?
My solution is to remove as much influence that the government has over private business as much as possible. However, usually those on the other side of the spectrum than me politically, think the solution is simply more of the same. More rules and regulations.
I agree with you in the fatal flaw that we have in our system:
ReplyDeleteThe very people that will be making these new rules and regulations are the ones that are swayed by lobby dollars. Corruption and crony capitalism are almost unavoidable.
I don't know how we solve it. I don't know if, in the fact that we are fallible humans that are predisposed to taking sides and helping those we know/agree with, there is any way to actually solve it.
I agree with you in this sense; I am not sure that MORE regulation will really help things. Those on Wall Street, or any street for that matter, are adept at finding ways around regulation. Not to mention the issue I stated above about the fact the lawmakers/regulators are likely harboring their own special interests.
Hell, Dodd/Frank seems like a good idea on the outside (and it probably does some good at curbing excessive gambling), but it was sponsored by a guy from a state that has the most hedge funds and another guy who received tons of money from State Street Financial.
So, I agree with you that the government should be out of regulating private business. But, there was the glaring caveat to that presented in 2008: bailouts.
These bankers wanted no regulation while they were making billions, yet they (and, through the nature of their business, WE) needed the government to survive.
That's where the catch is. If you truly believed in regulation, then you should not have supported the bailouts and they should have failed. While we can only speculate about what would have happened if they failed, I think we both had discussed that you believed the government HAD to step in; whereas I was more in the let them fail camp.
But, I know the ramifications that could have happened if they failed and, well, those ramifications would have been pretty huge. I still think they would have been better in the long term than what has happened; albeit MUCH more painful for the short duration.
So, that said, how do you deal with corporations that play such a large role in society? If you say you want government out of business, what happens when business' screw-ups come flooding out of their pond?
No, I'm with you, we should have let the banks fail. We'll never know what would have happened had that course of action been taken, but again, we're in complete agreement that I think it's better to experience short-term severe pain than long-term moderate pain.
ReplyDeleteI want to make clear that I'm not advocating a position of "no regulation, ever", for example I feel anti-trust laws are right and necessary.
I feel that if a company is engaging in activities that the public as a whole does not approve of, you let them vote with their dollars. If a company makes a huge mistake, let them suffer the consequences. I think we can both agree that companies listen very carefully when something affects their bottom line. Boycotts can be powerful things, and with the age of the internet, it's much easier for people to communicate a business' misconduct and dirty deeds than it was in the past.
I just feel that sometimes we hammer large corporations simply for the fact that they are large corporations. I don't like this at all. Many of these corporations are the reason why we have such a high standard of living here in the US when compared to other countries around the world. These corporations employ thousands of people and make quality products at low prices that are available across the country. Honestly, I'm a bit of a geek, but I love walking through those big box stores like Sam's Club and CostCo. I literally marvel at how easy it is for us to walk down the street, and go buy various food products, textiles, etc. These are the good things corporations do.
Do some corps participate in underhanded schemes and dishonest deals? Certainly, but let's be careful not to paint with a broad brush and demonize ALL large corps. simply because they exist. You should judge each corporation on its own.
Rob here. I completely agree with Anonymous, except perhaps for the anti-trust position.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you (Anonymous and Rob), honestly. I don't mean to sound like I hate corporations and think that they are evil. Well, I do, but more in the vein that I don't think they always do the right thing (environmentally, by their employees, etc.), but I definitely realize they have helped bring us to the standard of living we are at now.
ReplyDeleteBut, two things:
First, these corporations have gotten so large that the uber large ones control many media outlets; the same outlets that an extreme majority of the population get their information from. This has crushed accountability of these corporations to "the masses" due to the fact that little of the truth actually reaches their ears.
So, for example, since GE and NBC are kinfolk, what happens when GE does something atrocious? I seriously doubt NBC is going to throw their parent under the bus. Honestly, out of the relatively few I follow regularly, Bloomberg Business Week, IMHO, has been one of the minority that actually seems to report on stories that I would think would be against their best interest (except for, well, reporting the truth in as unbiased manner as possible).
This makes it very hard for the "consumer" to make an informed decision. Plus, monopolies are back, if you really think about it, and the average consumer does not really have too many options. If a person loves financial news and lives outside of the NYC area, they only have CNBC for decent business news (if they don't have BloombergTV. That's just one example.
Secondly, well, people are fickle and not all that bright. The first example that pops into my mind is BP. That disaster was covered HEAVILY; moreso than most recalls, judgements, fines, wrongdoings, CEO salaries/embezzlement, etc.
I remember still seeing BP stations packed during that time. Go by one now and, well, you probably wouldn't notice a difference. Even the folks that were boycotting then, have probably long forgot by now; especially when it's 3 cents cheaper!
When only so many options are available and people don't really know the whole truth (gasoline brands are all mixed together in big pipelines; the companies just mix their "special additives" in after they remove it from the common pipelines, so many people were buying BP product, even if they might not be handing their dollars over at a BP station), it makes it harder to actually vote with your dollars.
Sometimes, even if you want to, the convenience makes it hard. Most people know Wal-Mart isn't great to its employees, but they'll be damned if they're going to go to 3 stores to get everything and pay more money.