4 ms·

Actually it's quite easy to understand. It all comes down to their ideology, which in a nutshell comes down to: maximizing profits and (perceived) short-term g

by vanusa 6y ago

Actually it's quite easy to understand. It all comes down to their ideology, which in a nutshell comes down to: maximizing profits and (perceived) short-term gains for its core constituency (i.e. business elites) - and where that's not quite possible, at least keep the illusion of an every-expanding, anything goes "free market" system chugging along for another year or two -- at the expense of everyone and everything else -- and all common sense to boot.

nickff 6y ago
The demographics of voting are not so clear-cut (though income is correlated with votes), and the bigger gap is really between male and female voters.[1] There is also abundant evidence that people do not vote in their economic self-interest.[2] [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/11/does-your-wage-predict-your-vote/264541/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/11/does-yo... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_the_Rational_Voter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_the_Rational_Voter
- vkou 6y ago
  The voters, for the most part, are treated as useful idiots [1]. The real constituents are the business community, which will make or break your candidacy, who not only vote, but more importantly, fund candidates in alignment their own self-interest. Voting is actually the least effective means of democratic change (It is more effective then sitting at home, and complaining.) The second least effective means of democratic change is getting other people to vote. The most effective means of democratic change is picking the candidates that will be in the running - before voting happens - which can largely be done with dollars. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot
  - nickff 6y ago
    Money (generally) doesn't buy elections.[1][2] [1] https://freakonomics.com/2012/01/12/does-money-really-buy-elections-a-new-marketplace-podcast/ https://freakonomics.com/2012/01/12/does-money-really-buy-el... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_the_Rational_Voter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_the_Rational_Voter
    - mledu 6y ago
      Yes correlation != causation. As vkou noted, it's who gets to pick the candidates that matters, which leaves us to pick between a giant douche or a turd sandwich.
      - JamesBarney 6y ago
        A lot of candidates are chosen via the primary not business elites sitting in back rooms choosing candidates.
    - vkou 6y ago
      Money doesn't decide elections, money picks the candidates that run for elections. There's also the tried-and-true strategy of paying off both candidates, so that regardless who wins, they'll be beholden to you.
Mirioron 6y ago
I wonder if it's really about that. My guess would rather be that they're trying everything they can to boost the economy for a political advantage. Anyone that comes after them that reintroduces regulations will likely see a reduction (or a smaller increase) in the economy, which would allow them to regain power.
NittLion78 6y ago
Adam Serwer summed it up fairly succintly: "The Cruelty Is The Point" https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/the-cruelty-is-the-point/572104/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/the-cruelt...
Press2forEN 6y ago
You're going to have to do a better job at steel-manning their argument before you can even hope to engage them on this issue. Besides, post-2016 it appears the business elites have switched sides.
rayiner 6y ago
This is an utterly specious claim that overlooks the fact that the oil and gas industry is highly competitive and sells commodities. As a result, Exxon, for example, has a net profit margin well under 10%: https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/XOM/exxon/profit-margins https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/XOM/exxon/profit-m.... (Compare Google at 20%+ https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/GOOG/alphabet/profit-margins https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/GOOG/alphabet/prof...) Because of commodification and competition, almost all cost reductions flow to consumers. If fracking causes the cost of natural gas to drop in half, the producers will capture some profits in the downswing, but most of the benefit will go to consumers who enjoy a large drop in prices. At the same time, oil and gas production creates well-paying jobs for skilled, non-college workers. All that makes policies that make oil and gas products cheaper popular with voters not just popular with "business elites." Indeed, energy prices are highly correlated with both employment rates and Presidential approval ratings: https://seekingalpha.com/article/252704-the-price-of-gas-and-the-unemployment-rate https://seekingalpha.com/article/252704-the-price-of-gas-and... The "maximizing profits" trope simply doesn't explain why oil and gas has such an outsize influence. If profits are what mattered, the tech sector would have tremendous influence, but it doesn't. It doesn't, because unlike oil and gas it doesn't employ tons of non-college workers in swing states, and the cost of their products doesn't hit everyone in the wallet once a week. Profits are secondary or tertiary at best.
- mrlala 6y ago
  Eh, you basically just verified the point in my opinion.. You try to skirt around the issue saying the profits are maybe being passed down the consumer more than one thinks, ok valid. But the point still remains that everything that is being done is to maximize short term profits / cut short term consumer costs. >policies that make oil and gas products cheaper popular with voters not just popular with "business elites." Well.. so what? Of course 95% of people would generally say "MAKE THINGS CHEAPER!" That doesn't mean it should be done. Besides, you are also making it sound like more people would rather have cheaper gas than a long-sustainable environment. Not so sure you are right on that one.
  - rayiner 6y ago
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> It all comes down to their ideology, which in a nutshell comes down to: maximizing profits and (perceived) short-term gains for its core constituency (i.e. business elites) That's not it at all. It politics, not ideology. The fossil fuel industries in the US are huge. They employ millions of people. But those industries are rightly under attack for causing climate change and generally destroying the environment. If we did the right thing and priced carbon and prohibited pollution then they would be uncompetitive. Those forms of energy would cost more than solar or nuclear or something else and those people would lose their jobs. Which is what needs to happen, but did you really think they'd go down without a fight? Any politician who wants to win an election in those districts is going to be under pressure to take the "screw the environment to save the oil industry" position. It happens that the oil and coal deposits are disproportionately in red states, so that's where those constituents live and those are the politicians saddled with that voting block. This is a different motivation than an ideological preference for actual deregulation, which would have them e.g. refusing to regulate the tech industry rather than calling for some ridiculous anti-encryption nonsense. To get rid of it you need to do one of two things. One option is that when the other team gets in they need to do a better job of completely smashing those industries into smithereens so they no longer represent a powerful constituency (e.g. Obama could have done this but didn't), but they pay a short term cost for doing that. They'd almost certainly lose the next election because in the short term the people whose jobs you just destroyed are going to be angry and resentful. You also run the risk that after you lose the election the other team comes in and undoes what you did. The other option, and this is the really great one, is that you also pick some evil constituency of the other team and have everyone get together and destroy them both at once, so that politically it cancels out. But that requires a level of bipartisanship that isn't currently very common. It's everybody doing something which is good for the country even though it yields no partisan advantage, and that's not really how modern politicians think, so how do you get it to happen?

by vanusa 6y ago

nickff 6y ago

The demographics of voting are not so clear-cut (though income is correlated with votes), and the bigger gap is really between male and female voters.[1] There is also abundant evidence that people do not vote in their economic self-interest.[2] [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/11/does-your-wage-predict-your-vote/264541/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/11/does-yo... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_the_Rational_Voter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_the_Rational_Voter

vkou 6y ago
The voters, for the most part, are treated as useful idiots [1]. The real constituents are the business community, which will make or break your candidacy, who not only vote, but more importantly, fund candidates in alignment their own self-interest. Voting is actually the least effective means of democratic change (It is more effective then sitting at home, and complaining.) The second least effective means of democratic change is getting other people to vote. The most effective means of democratic change is picking the candidates that will be in the running - before voting happens - which can largely be done with dollars. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot
- nickff 6y ago
  Money (generally) doesn't buy elections.[1][2] [1] https://freakonomics.com/2012/01/12/does-money-really-buy-elections-a-new-marketplace-podcast/ https://freakonomics.com/2012/01/12/does-money-really-buy-el... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_the_Rational_Voter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_the_Rational_Voter
  - mledu 6y ago
    Yes correlation != causation. As vkou noted, it's who gets to pick the candidates that matters, which leaves us to pick between a giant douche or a turd sandwich.
    - JamesBarney 6y ago
      A lot of candidates are chosen via the primary not business elites sitting in back rooms choosing candidates.
  - vkou 6y ago
    Money doesn't decide elections, money picks the candidates that run for elections. There's also the tried-and-true strategy of paying off both candidates, so that regardless who wins, they'll be beholden to you.

Mirioron 6y ago

I wonder if it's really about that. My guess would rather be that they're trying everything they can to boost the economy for a political advantage. Anyone that comes after them that reintroduces regulations will likely see a reduction (or a smaller increase) in the economy, which would allow them to regain power.

NittLion78 6y ago

Adam Serwer summed it up fairly succintly: "The Cruelty Is The Point" https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/the-cruelty-is-the-point/572104/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/the-cruelt...

Press2forEN 6y ago

You're going to have to do a better job at steel-manning their argument before you can even hope to engage them on this issue. Besides, post-2016 it appears the business elites have switched sides.

rayiner 6y ago

This is an utterly specious claim that overlooks the fact that the oil and gas industry is highly competitive and sells commodities. As a result, Exxon, for example, has a net profit margin well under 10%: https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/XOM/exxon/profit-margins https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/XOM/exxon/profit-m.... (Compare Google at 20%+ https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/GOOG/alphabet/profit-margins https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/GOOG/alphabet/prof...) Because of commodification and competition, almost all cost reductions flow to consumers. If fracking causes the cost of natural gas to drop in half, the producers will capture some profits in the downswing, but most of the benefit will go to consumers who enjoy a large drop in prices. At the same time, oil and gas production creates well-paying jobs for skilled, non-college workers. All that makes policies that make oil and gas products cheaper popular with voters not just popular with "business elites." Indeed, energy prices are highly correlated with both employment rates and Presidential approval ratings: https://seekingalpha.com/article/252704-the-price-of-gas-and-the-unemployment-rate https://seekingalpha.com/article/252704-the-price-of-gas-and... The "maximizing profits" trope simply doesn't explain why oil and gas has such an outsize influence. If profits are what mattered, the tech sector would have tremendous influence, but it doesn't. It doesn't, because unlike oil and gas it doesn't employ tons of non-college workers in swing states, and the cost of their products doesn't hit everyone in the wallet once a week. Profits are secondary or tertiary at best.

mrlala 6y ago
Eh, you basically just verified the point in my opinion.. You try to skirt around the issue saying the profits are maybe being passed down the consumer more than one thinks, ok valid. But the point still remains that everything that is being done is to maximize short term profits / cut short term consumer costs. >policies that make oil and gas products cheaper popular with voters not just popular with "business elites." Well.. so what? Of course 95% of people would generally say "MAKE THINGS CHEAPER!" That doesn't mean it should be done. Besides, you are also making it sound like more people would rather have cheaper gas than a long-sustainable environment. Not so sure you are right on that one.
- rayiner 6y ago

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

> It all comes down to their ideology, which in a nutshell comes down to: maximizing profits and (perceived) short-term gains for its core constituency (i.e. business elites) That's not it at all. It politics, not ideology. The fossil fuel industries in the US are huge. They employ millions of people. But those industries are rightly under attack for causing climate change and generally destroying the environment. If we did the right thing and priced carbon and prohibited pollution then they would be uncompetitive. Those forms of energy would cost more than solar or nuclear or something else and those people would lose their jobs. Which is what needs to happen, but did you really think they'd go down without a fight? Any politician who wants to win an election in those districts is going to be under pressure to take the "screw the environment to save the oil industry" position. It happens that the oil and coal deposits are disproportionately in red states, so that's where those constituents live and those are the politicians saddled with that voting block. This is a different motivation than an ideological preference for actual deregulation, which would have them e.g. refusing to regulate the tech industry rather than calling for some ridiculous anti-encryption nonsense. To get rid of it you need to do one of two things. One option is that when the other team gets in they need to do a better job of completely smashing those industries into smithereens so they no longer represent a powerful constituency (e.g. Obama could have done this but didn't), but they pay a short term cost for doing that. They'd almost certainly lose the next election because in the short term the people whose jobs you just destroyed are going to be angry and resentful. You also run the risk that after you lose the election the other team comes in and undoes what you did. The other option, and this is the really great one, is that you also pick some evil constituency of the other team and have everyone get together and destroy them both at once, so that politically it cancels out. But that requires a level of bipartisanship that isn't currently very common. It's everybody doing something which is good for the country even though it yields no partisan advantage, and that's not really how modern politicians think, so how do you get it to happen?