5 ms·

This is essentially what's known as "rentier capitalism", but the Brookings paper unsurprisingly limits its scope mainly to the medical and legal fields. The m

by themgt 11y ago

This is essentially what's known as "rentier capitalism", but the Brookings paper unsurprisingly limits its scope mainly to the medical and legal fields. The much deeper problem is the degree to which much of "the system" itself is captured by these sorts of dynamics. Look at the amount many large companies and wealthy individuals spend on political lobbying of myriad forms. We're talking countless billions of dollars. Money, power and connections are used at every level of government, from local to state to federal to subtly and not-so-subtly tilt the pinball machine in far too many and complex ways to attempt to enumerate, but anyone who has been in or near the workings of power understands intimately how this works. One salient point for me is witnessing similar phenomena in other countries to a varying degree, down to e.g. official government border guards, law enforcement and civil service officials in some countries who openly shake people down for bribes to perform their normal duties, either expeditiously or at all. So my takeaway is, this sort of subtle corruption is endemic and impossible to completely end in any human society, but nonetheless the degree and character of the corruption vary hugely from country to country, and the US seems relatively unique in the "first world" in allowing this corruption to grossly undermine basic foundations of modern western democracy to the point people are getting ready to grab the pitchforks. One of the main things elites and intellectuals took away from the rise of fascism and communism in the 1930s/cold war period was the need for democracy, no matter how corrupt and sold out, to provide some sort of floor beneath which it would not allow its citizens to fall, and some sense of forward progress and shared success, even if not equally shared ... a sense of we're-all-in-this-togetherness. This is the principle that both political parties in the US have now effectively abandoned, rhetoric aside, and the consequences are unfolding before our eyes.

hjhgjtyhgdfi 11y ago
I don't think there is any dentist or lawyer (nor a lobbyist for that matter) who is richer than Paul Graham. To say that the rich only benefit from rigged markets is a simplistic and naive way of understanding how the world works.
pron 11y ago
You are assuming a government is needed for the rich to get so powerful, when it is not. The rich had even greater political power under feudalism, when government was far more symbolic than real, and under weak governments (e.g. the US in the second half of the 19th century). If now significant amounts of political power are mediated through politicians who need to be persuaded, weak or nonexistent governments allow this power to be exerted directly, in pure and unmediated form. If anything, democratic governments are able to curtail this power somewhat, though obviously not keep it in check entirely. I think that the US is indeed unique in the levels of power it affords the rich precisely because its central government is weaker than in other Western democracies. The freedom companies like Google have in the US is getting closer to direct, pre-government political power, as opposes to modern, mediated political power.
- deelowe 11y ago
  > You are assuming a government is needed, when it is not. What do you propose as an alternative. We have to somehow prevent Atlanta from pumping away all of Alabama's water no (yes, its a strawman. treat it as such).
  - pron 11y ago
    Oh, sorry. I meant the exact opposite. Government is not needed for the rich the get so powerful. I thought that was clear.
wycx 11y ago
I do not think the US is unique, indeed I would say that all modern western countries suffer the same problem. The elites were closet supporters of fascism until they weren't. Then we had this anomalous period from the end of WW2 until the early 1970s when the Keyensians were dominant and governments pursued full employment economies via fiscal policy. The elites really can't abide sharing with labour, and capitalised on the early 1970s inflation/oil shock to promote their essentially neo-feudalist policies in the guise of neoliberalism/monetarism. The narrative of how all this came to pass is largely forgotten by mainstream economics, but there is an excellent series of posts, if dense at Bill Mitchell's blog[1] that cover this, and is much better than my crude paraphrasing. The logical end-point for rentiers is feudalism. Without communism as a viable alternate force, I think they are seeing how low that floor can go. [1] http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=32776 http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=32776 Part 10, 11 and 12 are particularly relevant
natrius 11y ago
> this sort of subtle corruption is endemic and impossible to completely end in any human society You're correct that democracy will always be captured by money. In a very real sense, our political system isn't democracy. It is capitalism. The only way to prevent this is to stop trying to enforce so many rules with centralized democracies and move to a decentralized enforcement mechanism instead. Individuals act in their own perceived interests, so if individuals enforced our rules instead, you'd have to pay everyone to look the other way, which is a perfectly acceptable outcome. So what is a decentralized enforcement mechanism? Trade. When people spend money, they're trading access to everyone's work. You and I give that money its value, and as individuals, we can take that value away from people who break the rules. We can stop accepting money that was traded by people who broke our rules. You and I have the power to restore democracy by punishing the people who use their wealth to manipulate our democracy.
- Hermel 11y ago
  I have come to the same conclusion: decentralization is the key factor against corruption and lobbyism. That's also why I sympathize with separatist movements in Scotland, Catalunia, Northern Italy, etc.
  - mahyarm 11y ago
    Decentralization although can have a hard time competing against more efficient centralized entities. A large amount of semi-cooperating smaller entities will not necessarily lead to less corruption, because small town corruption is a very real issue that doesn't get much sunlight. One example is the internet. Why do large centralized entities seem to 'winner takes all' in many markets in software for example? Another example is the bay area. Because the area is so balkanized, there is no unified transit system for the entire metro area and caltrain, bart, ac transit and muni all work badly together, with bart not being built as it was supposed to because 1 or 2 counties decided not to play ball.
- ubernostrum 11y ago
  This works great until someone who comes in with a lot of money hires a bunch of these individuals to enforce their will on others.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
ohthehugemanate 11y ago
>Money, power and connections are used at every level of government, from local to state to federal to subtly and not-so-subtly tilt the pinball machine Who, specifically? Who is taking bribes, in what form, from whom, and to do what? Give names, instances, and evidence. You're making very serious allegations with all of the intellectual rigor of Fox news.
- msellout 11y ago
  I remember some years ago, Atlanta changed the law to ban alcohol sales a little earlier at night, except in one neighborhood downtown. Of course there was one guy and his business partners who happened to own everything in that neighborhood. How do you think the city council was convinced to write such strange policy?

by themgt 11y ago

hjhgjtyhgdfi 11y ago

I don't think there is any dentist or lawyer (nor a lobbyist for that matter) who is richer than Paul Graham. To say that the rich only benefit from rigged markets is a simplistic and naive way of understanding how the world works.

pron 11y ago

You are assuming a government is needed for the rich to get so powerful, when it is not. The rich had even greater political power under feudalism, when government was far more symbolic than real, and under weak governments (e.g. the US in the second half of the 19th century). If now significant amounts of political power are mediated through politicians who need to be persuaded, weak or nonexistent governments allow this power to be exerted directly, in pure and unmediated form. If anything, democratic governments are able to curtail this power somewhat, though obviously not keep it in check entirely. I think that the US is indeed unique in the levels of power it affords the rich precisely because its central government is weaker than in other Western democracies. The freedom companies like Google have in the US is getting closer to direct, pre-government political power, as opposes to modern, mediated political power.

deelowe 11y ago
> You are assuming a government is needed, when it is not. What do you propose as an alternative. We have to somehow prevent Atlanta from pumping away all of Alabama's water no (yes, its a strawman. treat it as such).
- pron 11y ago
  Oh, sorry. I meant the exact opposite. Government is not needed for the rich the get so powerful. I thought that was clear.

wycx 11y ago

I do not think the US is unique, indeed I would say that all modern western countries suffer the same problem. The elites were closet supporters of fascism until they weren't. Then we had this anomalous period from the end of WW2 until the early 1970s when the Keyensians were dominant and governments pursued full employment economies via fiscal policy. The elites really can't abide sharing with labour, and capitalised on the early 1970s inflation/oil shock to promote their essentially neo-feudalist policies in the guise of neoliberalism/monetarism. The narrative of how all this came to pass is largely forgotten by mainstream economics, but there is an excellent series of posts, if dense at Bill Mitchell's blog[1] that cover this, and is much better than my crude paraphrasing. The logical end-point for rentiers is feudalism. Without communism as a viable alternate force, I think they are seeing how low that floor can go. [1] http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=32776 http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=32776 Part 10, 11 and 12 are particularly relevant

natrius 11y ago

> this sort of subtle corruption is endemic and impossible to completely end in any human society You're correct that democracy will always be captured by money. In a very real sense, our political system isn't democracy. It is capitalism. The only way to prevent this is to stop trying to enforce so many rules with centralized democracies and move to a decentralized enforcement mechanism instead. Individuals act in their own perceived interests, so if individuals enforced our rules instead, you'd have to pay everyone to look the other way, which is a perfectly acceptable outcome. So what is a decentralized enforcement mechanism? Trade. When people spend money, they're trading access to everyone's work. You and I give that money its value, and as individuals, we can take that value away from people who break the rules. We can stop accepting money that was traded by people who broke our rules. You and I have the power to restore democracy by punishing the people who use their wealth to manipulate our democracy.

Hermel 11y ago
I have come to the same conclusion: decentralization is the key factor against corruption and lobbyism. That's also why I sympathize with separatist movements in Scotland, Catalunia, Northern Italy, etc.
- mahyarm 11y ago
  Decentralization although can have a hard time competing against more efficient centralized entities. A large amount of semi-cooperating smaller entities will not necessarily lead to less corruption, because small town corruption is a very real issue that doesn't get much sunlight. One example is the internet. Why do large centralized entities seem to 'winner takes all' in many markets in software for example? Another example is the bay area. Because the area is so balkanized, there is no unified transit system for the entire metro area and caltrain, bart, ac transit and muni all work badly together, with bart not being built as it was supposed to because 1 or 2 counties decided not to play ball.
ubernostrum 11y ago
This works great until someone who comes in with a lot of money hires a bunch of these individuals to enforce their will on others.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

ohthehugemanate 11y ago

>Money, power and connections are used at every level of government, from local to state to federal to subtly and not-so-subtly tilt the pinball machine Who, specifically? Who is taking bribes, in what form, from whom, and to do what? Give names, instances, and evidence. You're making very serious allegations with all of the intellectual rigor of Fox news.

msellout 11y ago
I remember some years ago, Atlanta changed the law to ban alcohol sales a little earlier at night, except in one neighborhood downtown. Of course there was one guy and his business partners who happened to own everything in that neighborhood. How do you think the city council was convinced to write such strange policy?