5 ms·

American progressives can be just as guilty, if less organized. They tend to view big business with suspicion and incorrectly think that the American government

American progressives can be just as guilty, if less organized. They tend to view big business with suspicion and incorrectly think that the American government is hopelessly corrupt and in the pocket of "Big Business and/or Wall Street".

bluthru 11y ago
When money buys political speech, I don't think you can call the other side "just as guilty".
- baddox 11y ago
  Which side has the actual ability to forcefully implement their desired policies over a large population?
  - deciplex 11y ago
    Both.
    - baddox 11y ago
      Do you really suppose so? I suppose it's technically possible for both to try, but imagine the resistance one side would be met with.
  - Asbostos 11y ago
    The side with the real power - the voters. You can blame businesses or activists or interest groups or governments or whatever but America still has a democracy and American people actually do choose the outcomes they get. You personally might not want them, but most of your fellow Americans either do want them or succumb to some personal greed to make them happen.
    - baddox 11y ago
      I disagree very much. The fact that concentrated interests win out over dispersed interests is not some failure of the population to educate itself and vote hard enough. It's an extremely basic game theoretical inevitability.
      - dredmorbius 11y ago
        Exactly. See Mancur Olson, "The Logic of Collective Action". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action
    - mfringel 11y ago
      No. The electorate chooses from a set of outcomes that are chosen long before they get a chance to vote on any of them. The political process starts a very long time before a typical citizen gets to vote. Thinking that the political process begins and ends with voting is one of the key components of despair and cynicism in a democracy.
beatpanda 11y ago
In what sense is that view incorrect? The cost of access to the political process in America is astronomically high and keeps increasing, and acquiring the amount of money it now takes to be competitive in an election requires adopting a set of positions that are friendly to whatever industries have the most money to give. What part of that analysis is wrong? What counterexample can you offer?
- letitgo12345 11y ago
  While money buys political access, a large part of the responsibility does rest with the voters (who are mostly ordinary people, not big money) who keep voting for reps (or don't vote) who support regressive policies. Also big money doesn't control the govt -- there are lots of times where they don't get their way -- immigration reform being a prime example where nativist sentiment has stalled it for more than a decade even though the business community is largely for it.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - beatpanda 11y ago
    I think you are insufficiently cynical to understand immigration reform. The current state of immigration reform, where politicians demand (and are getting) increased enforcement without any expansion of a legal right to work in the U.S., works great for companies in labor-intensive industries. On the one hand, you get a workforce willing to get paid less than the legal minimum, and you don't have to pay things like worker's comp, social security, etc. On the other, enforcement has increased so much that those underpaid workers live in constant fear of being deported or having their families split apart, so they don't report their employers breaking the law. For companies that have access to that pool of precarious labor, the situation is great, and they've invested a lot in not changing anything.
    - sgc 11y ago
      I think you are too cynical to be able to understand it. What you propose they are doing is the equivalent of inviting the fox into the hen house to give the other roosters a run for their money--it is Russian roulette. I doubt anyone using undocumented labor wants more enforcement, although certainly a low-wage state would welcome enforcement for a "competitive"/"fair" advantage over higher-wage states (like California, with its massive undocumented labor pool).
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
Frondo 11y ago
No, I don't think I ever hear American progressives assert that they want less government. Less corrupt government? Absolutely, but the idea that government is "too big" seems entirely in province of the contemporary right (and you can partition that up into the industrialists who want to abolish the EPA, the code-worded-racists who want to end welfare, the bootstrappers who want to privatize everything, etc).
- arebop 11y ago
  Really, you have never heard American progressives call for reduced military expenditure?
  - Retra 11y ago
    Mostly they aim to divert military expenditure into other things like education, healthcare, or research.
- zero_intp 11y ago
  As a progressive, I would support a plan of re distributive basic income. The plan I would support would involve shrinking existing government. As a progressive, I support removing the costs of worker healthcare from labor costs to industry. As a progressive, I support reducing the over-all social cost to higher education by eliminating the federal grant and loan processes, and simply block allocating per-student rates for state schools. As a progressive, I would love to see Corporations dehumanized; Speech equal speech; and commercial activity limited to the interaction of autonomous entities. As a progressive, I would support returning the sovereign responsibilities of application of force to the government, and in doing so reduce the actual per-body cost of warfare and law-enforcement. (Ending cost-plus contracting) (Returning prisoners to the states from private enterprises) If given free reign, every industry would cloud it's cost externalities, such as the environmental repercussions, or the needs of the dependents that work those convenient company towns. Quarterly balance reports rarely see the value in education, healthcare, or decent food in those locked-in labor units.
  - 11y ago
guelo 11y ago
The environmental laws you mention happened more than 30 years ago. It sure seems like bigcos have gained the upperhand in the last generation.
- chris_va 11y ago
  Not really, it is mostly just more media coverage and observation bias. As an example, it used to be that you could just dump whatever you wanted into the local water table. Now everything is picked over with a fine comb.
  - MaysonL 11y ago
    Contrast the treatment of bank executives after the S&L crisis, and after the recent financial crisis. They got away with murder (not quite literally) this time.

bluthru 11y ago

When money buys political speech, I don't think you can call the other side "just as guilty".

baddox 11y ago
Which side has the actual ability to forcefully implement their desired policies over a large population?
- deciplex 11y ago
  Both.
  - baddox 11y ago
    Do you really suppose so? I suppose it's technically possible for both to try, but imagine the resistance one side would be met with.
- Asbostos 11y ago
  The side with the real power - the voters. You can blame businesses or activists or interest groups or governments or whatever but America still has a democracy and American people actually do choose the outcomes they get. You personally might not want them, but most of your fellow Americans either do want them or succumb to some personal greed to make them happen.
  - baddox 11y ago
    I disagree very much. The fact that concentrated interests win out over dispersed interests is not some failure of the population to educate itself and vote hard enough. It's an extremely basic game theoretical inevitability.
    - dredmorbius 11y ago
      Exactly. See Mancur Olson, "The Logic of Collective Action". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action
  - mfringel 11y ago
    No. The electorate chooses from a set of outcomes that are chosen long before they get a chance to vote on any of them. The political process starts a very long time before a typical citizen gets to vote. Thinking that the political process begins and ends with voting is one of the key components of despair and cynicism in a democracy.

beatpanda 11y ago

In what sense is that view incorrect? The cost of access to the political process in America is astronomically high and keeps increasing, and acquiring the amount of money it now takes to be competitive in an election requires adopting a set of positions that are friendly to whatever industries have the most money to give. What part of that analysis is wrong? What counterexample can you offer?

letitgo12345 11y ago
While money buys political access, a large part of the responsibility does rest with the voters (who are mostly ordinary people, not big money) who keep voting for reps (or don't vote) who support regressive policies. Also big money doesn't control the govt -- there are lots of times where they don't get their way -- immigration reform being a prime example where nativist sentiment has stalled it for more than a decade even though the business community is largely for it.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- beatpanda 11y ago
  I think you are insufficiently cynical to understand immigration reform. The current state of immigration reform, where politicians demand (and are getting) increased enforcement without any expansion of a legal right to work in the U.S., works great for companies in labor-intensive industries. On the one hand, you get a workforce willing to get paid less than the legal minimum, and you don't have to pay things like worker's comp, social security, etc. On the other, enforcement has increased so much that those underpaid workers live in constant fear of being deported or having their families split apart, so they don't report their employers breaking the law. For companies that have access to that pool of precarious labor, the situation is great, and they've invested a lot in not changing anything.
  - sgc 11y ago
    I think you are too cynical to be able to understand it. What you propose they are doing is the equivalent of inviting the fox into the hen house to give the other roosters a run for their money--it is Russian roulette. I doubt anyone using undocumented labor wants more enforcement, although certainly a low-wage state would welcome enforcement for a "competitive"/"fair" advantage over higher-wage states (like California, with its massive undocumented labor pool).

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

Frondo 11y ago

No, I don't think I ever hear American progressives assert that they want less government. Less corrupt government? Absolutely, but the idea that government is "too big" seems entirely in province of the contemporary right (and you can partition that up into the industrialists who want to abolish the EPA, the code-worded-racists who want to end welfare, the bootstrappers who want to privatize everything, etc).

arebop 11y ago
Really, you have never heard American progressives call for reduced military expenditure?
- Retra 11y ago
  Mostly they aim to divert military expenditure into other things like education, healthcare, or research.
zero_intp 11y ago
As a progressive, I would support a plan of re distributive basic income. The plan I would support would involve shrinking existing government. As a progressive, I support removing the costs of worker healthcare from labor costs to industry. As a progressive, I support reducing the over-all social cost to higher education by eliminating the federal grant and loan processes, and simply block allocating per-student rates for state schools. As a progressive, I would love to see Corporations dehumanized; Speech equal speech; and commercial activity limited to the interaction of autonomous entities. As a progressive, I would support returning the sovereign responsibilities of application of force to the government, and in doing so reduce the actual per-body cost of warfare and law-enforcement. (Ending cost-plus contracting) (Returning prisoners to the states from private enterprises) If given free reign, every industry would cloud it's cost externalities, such as the environmental repercussions, or the needs of the dependents that work those convenient company towns. Quarterly balance reports rarely see the value in education, healthcare, or decent food in those locked-in labor units.
- 11y ago

guelo 11y ago

The environmental laws you mention happened more than 30 years ago. It sure seems like bigcos have gained the upperhand in the last generation.

chris_va 11y ago
Not really, it is mostly just more media coverage and observation bias. As an example, it used to be that you could just dump whatever you wanted into the local water table. Now everything is picked over with a fine comb.
- MaysonL 11y ago
  Contrast the treatment of bank executives after the S&L crisis, and after the recent financial crisis. They got away with murder (not quite literally) this time.