5 ms·

Policy-Making Billionaires

19 points by robg 15y ago

cpr 15y ago
Funny how the sub-text of this article is so clearly the pro-government bias of the reporter. "After all, we know that the only real way to effect social change is through government action" could summarize its message. Which is doubly funny considering how the first part of the article is outlining just how people are working outside of government to actually get things done.
- patio11 15y ago
  The NYT prefers that the super-rich were a source of dumb money to fund enlightened government policies informed less by special interests and more by the proper custodians of our democratic heritage, journalists. Snark aside, the NYT is a great crusading liberal paper. All four of those final words are important all of the time.
- MaxGabriel 15y ago
  The paragraph below really shows it, too. The premise is that money spent lobbying the government is an 'investment' that returns social services--but it ignores that the government first has to tax consumers to buy those social services in the first place, and the undesired effects of e.g. minimum wage laws. "A coming study by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, which advocates giving that aids the poor, looked at 100 social welfare organizations in 13 states. The groups spent about $230 million on advocacy and organizing for minimum wage laws, expanding tax credits for the working poor, and other programs. Those efforts, the study found, produced more than $26 billion in direct and indirect benefits to individuals, a “return on investment” of about 115 to one."
jacobolus 15y ago
It’s quite obnoxious that billionaires are given such deference in our society to make policy decisions about topics entirely unrelated to their area of competence. There is little reason to believe that tech billionaires should be experts on education, for instance (as compared to say teachers or child psychologists), but because as a society we’ve made it difficult to raise money through taxes, we’re now uncritically embracing their educational reforms because they come with money attached. The problem with forming public policy around the whims of the super wealthy, beyond their lack of special expertise, is that they are not accountable to everyone else in anything like the same way government is, and we can’t expect them to have interests closely aligned with the general social interest. Which means that as inequality continues to increase and the rich more and more attempt to provide public services as private enterprises, the ability for the rest of us to influence and “buy in to” these systems is steadily eroded. The cash can be quite helpful in particular areas, but ultimately this form of policymaking undercuts democracy.
- cpr 15y ago
  Oh, do you think our government is truly accountable to everyone? I think just the opposite. The control we have over what happens at all levels of government (most specially federal and state) is so tenuous as to be essentially nil.
  - jacobolus 15y ago
    My local, state, and federal governments (e.g. my local school board, my state senator, the federal appeals court) are dramatically more accessible and accountable to me than, say, Google, the Saudi royal family, or Bill Gates. I have the right to petition when I have grievances, I can organize voters to apply pressure, I can sue in courts when government policies don’t live up to the constitution or higher-level laws, I can run for office. When politicians are corrupt, it is (at least sometimes) a scandal. When corporate actors are corrupt, there’s only a problem if the shareholders are negatively impacted or when the bad outcomes are so overwhelming that government takes action. I agree with you that our current politics has many problems, perhaps chief among them the incredible influence of political donations, revolving corporate doors, and so on.
    - cpr 15y ago
      And you think you can personally make a serious difference with one vote and some organizing? Whew. I agree that Google, Gates and Saudis are completely out of reach.
      - jacobolus 15y ago
        I think smart and dedicated activists can make an enormous difference, yes. There’s no “some” about the organizing part though. Effecting political change takes huge amounts of (smart, carefully focused) effort, because we live in a complex society where lots of different people have different ideas about how things should work, and persuasion on such a scale is damn hard.
    - philwelch 15y ago
      Your local school board, for instance, is also more accessible and accountable to jingoes, creationists, abstinence activists, and teachers' unions.
ggwicz 15y ago
Policy-making anythings are annoying. Let's see more policy-removing. Less fragile and less systemically harmful.

19 points by robg 15y ago

cpr 15y ago

Funny how the sub-text of this article is so clearly the pro-government bias of the reporter. "After all, we know that the only real way to effect social change is through government action" could summarize its message. Which is doubly funny considering how the first part of the article is outlining just how people are working outside of government to actually get things done.

patio11 15y ago
The NYT prefers that the super-rich were a source of dumb money to fund enlightened government policies informed less by special interests and more by the proper custodians of our democratic heritage, journalists. Snark aside, the NYT is a great crusading liberal paper. All four of those final words are important all of the time.
MaxGabriel 15y ago
The paragraph below really shows it, too. The premise is that money spent lobbying the government is an 'investment' that returns social services--but it ignores that the government first has to tax consumers to buy those social services in the first place, and the undesired effects of e.g. minimum wage laws. "A coming study by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, which advocates giving that aids the poor, looked at 100 social welfare organizations in 13 states. The groups spent about $230 million on advocacy and organizing for minimum wage laws, expanding tax credits for the working poor, and other programs. Those efforts, the study found, produced more than $26 billion in direct and indirect benefits to individuals, a “return on investment” of about 115 to one."

jacobolus 15y ago

It’s quite obnoxious that billionaires are given such deference in our society to make policy decisions about topics entirely unrelated to their area of competence. There is little reason to believe that tech billionaires should be experts on education, for instance (as compared to say teachers or child psychologists), but because as a society we’ve made it difficult to raise money through taxes, we’re now uncritically embracing their educational reforms because they come with money attached. The problem with forming public policy around the whims of the super wealthy, beyond their lack of special expertise, is that they are not accountable to everyone else in anything like the same way government is, and we can’t expect them to have interests closely aligned with the general social interest. Which means that as inequality continues to increase and the rich more and more attempt to provide public services as private enterprises, the ability for the rest of us to influence and “buy in to” these systems is steadily eroded. The cash can be quite helpful in particular areas, but ultimately this form of policymaking undercuts democracy.

cpr 15y ago
Oh, do you think our government is truly accountable to everyone? I think just the opposite. The control we have over what happens at all levels of government (most specially federal and state) is so tenuous as to be essentially nil.
- jacobolus 15y ago
  My local, state, and federal governments (e.g. my local school board, my state senator, the federal appeals court) are dramatically more accessible and accountable to me than, say, Google, the Saudi royal family, or Bill Gates. I have the right to petition when I have grievances, I can organize voters to apply pressure, I can sue in courts when government policies don’t live up to the constitution or higher-level laws, I can run for office. When politicians are corrupt, it is (at least sometimes) a scandal. When corporate actors are corrupt, there’s only a problem if the shareholders are negatively impacted or when the bad outcomes are so overwhelming that government takes action. I agree with you that our current politics has many problems, perhaps chief among them the incredible influence of political donations, revolving corporate doors, and so on.
  - cpr 15y ago
    And you think you can personally make a serious difference with one vote and some organizing? Whew. I agree that Google, Gates and Saudis are completely out of reach.
    - jacobolus 15y ago
      I think smart and dedicated activists can make an enormous difference, yes. There’s no “some” about the organizing part though. Effecting political change takes huge amounts of (smart, carefully focused) effort, because we live in a complex society where lots of different people have different ideas about how things should work, and persuasion on such a scale is damn hard.
  - philwelch 15y ago
    Your local school board, for instance, is also more accessible and accountable to jingoes, creationists, abstinence activists, and teachers' unions.

ggwicz 15y ago

Policy-making anythings are annoying. Let's see more policy-removing. Less fragile and less systemically harmful.