5 ms·

> The big winners are the big corporations world-wide, because they know how to play the game or at least how to pay the people who know. It even goes beyond t

• sillygoose 11y ago
  Think of it this way: there's a market for favours given through the use of political power. The problem isn't the existence of "market economics", but rather the existence of this particular market.
  • glesica 11y ago
    But as long as the political system and the market economic system exist side-by-side, this particular market will always exist! It's a feedback loop. The favor generates a return, the return allows acquisition of power, and the power allows more favors. It's like Rod Blagojevich said, to paraphrase, if you've got this incredibly valuable thing (the ability to make policy), why would you ever give it away for free?! You sell it to the highest bidder. And the highest bidder will always be a "special" interest, because, as I pointed out in my last comment, they are the only ones who can afford it (because they will use the policies to make the money back). The Koch brothers understand this, they came right out and said that they view campaign contributions as investments. As long as we delude ourselves into believing that the system can be made to work with just the right combination of rules and checks (in other words, as long as we delude ourselves into thinking that markets aren't dynamic and don't route around damage), nothing will change.
    • sillygoose 11y ago
      > As long as we delude ourselves into believing that the system can be made to work with just the right combination of rules and checks (in other words, as long as we delude ourselves into thinking that markets aren't dynamic and don't route around damage), nothing will change. You could replace "markets" with "people pursuing their personal gain" there. Of course they will adapt to changes, much like a businessman will just leave the country if he gets tax-raped too hard. We all pursue our personal gain all the time, and there's nothing wrong with that per se. That's just the way we're biologically programmed to operate. But go back to what Rod said and take it to its logical conclusion: as long as there is political power, people with it will always be bribed. But then again, that's pretty much the point of having political power. We're all pursuing our personal gain, and political power is just another means of doing that. The solution, then, is for no one to have political power to begin with.
      • glesica 11y ago
        You make a good point, but I think getting rid of political power is at least as difficult as changing the economic system to provide better incentives. It's like companies that claim to have flat corporate structures. There are bosses, they just aren't identified as such on the org chart. To look at it another way, in a market economy (at least a capitalist one), the possession of money and property is a form of political power. "If you do what I say, I'll give you a bunch of money", the "Prank Monkey" episode of The Simpsons comes to mind, etc. My ultimate point is that there are conflicts between the market economy and the democratic political structure. This is contrary to "conventional" wisdom, and I think it is important to start recognizing these conflicts openly (recognizing that they are fundamental) and coming up with some kind of solution (whatever it looks like).
        • sillygoose 11y ago
          Better incentives? An incentive is just something that drives you towards a certain course of action. How can one be better than another? Isn't the act what matters? The choices we make can be moral, amoral, or immoral. Incentives aren't really relevant there. For example, imagine you're walking out alone at night, and for some mysterious reason come across a little old lady on the street. She'll probably have a purse with her, and that's your incentive for robbing her. But assuming you're not a psychopath, you won't even think of doing that. Even a psycho would be more likely to just mind his own business than rob her. > the possession of money and property is a form of political power Why would it be? Political authority is the perceived right to impose your will on others by force. Political power is the position to do that. Asking someone to do something in exchange for money is a potential trade. There's nothing immoral about offering a woman $500k for a blowjob. She'll probably do it too. But it's her choice - she'll have to figure out if the $500k would be worth any loss of dignity she would experience as a result of selling you that blowjob. As long as it's voluntary, there's no problem. It's just a choice she'll make, and be responsible for. > My ultimate point is that there are conflicts between the market economy and the democratic political structure. I'm not sure what that means. But again, as long as there's political power, people with it will be bribed, regardless of what else happens in the economy. The solution is to abolish political power. You might note that coercion is immoral anyway, and perhaps start a line of questioning from that premise.