Thread: class warfare...avast ye!

Both parties, under the surface, are very similar. Both are willing to sell out to the highest bidder - and do so frequently. - MattInFla

The bickering that goes on between the Democrats and Republicans is a huge distraction from the fact they both exist to serve the interests of the status quo - primarily the interests of their corporate sponsors. - DBlack

ahoy me friends!

i was thinkin' about the statements from the mighty MattLarson and the skeptical Dblack, two folk who i've always found to be "centrist" in thar disdain and cynicism 'o both political parties.

MattInFla states that congress be fer sale to the highest bidder, and it thus follows, i think, that the highest bidder be one with lots and lots and lots 'o monies.

Dblack kinda echoes that sentiment that it be the corporate sponsors and thar gold filled war chests that hold sway o'er our representatives in washington.

i mused on both thar statements whilst readin' this article, i'll give ye a few bites 'o it fer ye all to chew on and mull o'er;

If you happened to be watching NBC on the first Sunday morning in August last summer, you would have seen something curious. There, on the set of Meet the Press, the host, David Gregory, was interviewing a guest who made a forceful case that the U.S. economy had become “very distorted.”

In the wake of the recession, this guest explained, high-income individuals, large banks, and major corporations had experienced a “significant recovery”; the rest of the economy, by contrast—including small businesses and “a very significant amount of the labor force”—was stuck and still struggling. What we were seeing, he argued, was not a single economy at all, but rather “fundamentally two separate types of economy,” increasingly distinct and divergent.

This widening gap between the rich and non-rich has been evident for years. In a 2005 report to investors, for instance, three analysts at Citigroup advised that “the World is dividing into two blocs—the Plutonomy and the rest”:

In a plutonomy there is no such animal as “the U.S. consumer” or “the UK consumer”, or indeed the “Russian consumer”. There are rich consumers, few in number, but disproportionate in the gigantic slice of income and consumption they take. There are the rest, the “non-rich”, the multitudinous many, but only accounting for surprisingly small bites of the national pie.

According to the economists Emmanuel Saez of Berkeley and Thomas Piketty of the Paris School of Economics, between 2002 and 2007, 65 percent of all income growth in the United States went to the top 1 percent of the population.

The Rise of the New Global Elite - Magazine - The Atlantic

it be a fascinatin' and slightly depressin' read, but the statements 'o our two honorable posters, coupled with this article made me wonder...is thar indeed class warfare goin' on? its not just the rich vs the poor...but rather the super, duper fantastically wealthy 'o the world vs the rest 'o the planet?

are the superwealthy the enemy, or be they our friends?

i mean, i be a business owner and am doin' okie dokies, but no Bill Gates. yet i wonder...i pay me employees between $15.00 and $50.00 per hour, yet if i could keep them onboard me vessel fer 15cents to 50cents per hour (which would only happen if thar was nowhar else fer them to go), i'd do it in a heartbeat and enrich meself further. do the super, duper wealthy think differently than meself or would they do the same?

- MeadHallPirate

I think most people get it wrong when analyzing how politics works. Of course, I could be wrong too, but there is sort of a science called Political Choice Theory that political scientists put a lot of credence into. The crux is, when being watched by the public, politicians will do what the public wants, and when not being watched, they'll do what their donors and or/local interests want. Some people would take that to mean corporations, but issue groups matter a lot too, and the overall economic wellbeing of their state matters a lot to them too, since content voters tend to reelect at a 99% rate.

What Matt said is not a terrible rule of thumb, but it's not that simple, since "bidders" aren't just about money. Money is only good in that it can get a politician votes, which is what they really want. If a politician has to choose between some money and some votes, he'll take the votes. For example, if unions offer to campaign heavily for a candidate, that's more important to a candidate than just getting money, since unions have very effective political operations. The NRA and AARP are also good at doing direct mail, so politicians sit up straight and listen when those two groups make demands, even if they don't donate a dime. Local interests that provide a lot of jobs also get favorable treatment even if they don't donate money. No Michigan politician is going to fail to fight for the auto industry, whether the auto industry gives them money or not. Auto industry goes down, voters get surly and blame their incumbents.

Dblack's statement is less accurate, since it singles out corporations. Corporations are powerful, but their power is overrated because they don't have many unified interests. Some want subsidies, others favor a more free market approach. Some want protectionism, some want more foreign trade. They use the political arena as another form of competition, such as UPS trying to force Fedex to unionize. Drug companies that make generics want shorter patents, drug companies that develop their own want longer patent periods. Other interest groups, while they put in less money than corporations, have more unified stances and are able to mobilize people. As powerful as corporations are, one thing they cannot do, ever, is deliver votes directly the way unions and issue groups can. Even a group as small as the Israel lobby or the Cuba lobby knows how to focus its small power to get big results.

Politics is a complicated enterprise, like anything that involves real human beings. They all have their own motivations and their own special interests and respond differently to different circumstances.

Now income inequality, many people attribute that to politics, but it's more the changing face of the world economy. Inequality is worst in the US, but it's growing everywhere. But at the same time, a billion people have been lifted out of poverty around the world over the last couple of decades. So I'm not sure there's something broken here to fix yet.

One thing I'd like to add about the corporation thing: corporations mainly focus their power in Congress in two ways:

1) Defense. Another corporation or interest group wants to take something from them. They fight to prevent this from happening. Corporations are AWESOME at playing defense, because there's a status quo bias in our system even if you don't try to put your finger on the scale. Put corporate lobbying and money on the scale, and status quo bias becomes very hard to overcome. So things like environmental restrictions, labor policy, etc. become very hard to pass.
2) Rent seeking. Corporations want a special tax break or regulation. The public doesn't care much about such a small issue, so doesn't pay attention. So the corporation usually gets what they want.

What people get wrong is in thinking that corporations can stop or significantly alter major legislation. At best, they can get particularly offensive parts altered that seriously affect their bottom line. But they aren't going to be able to get major legislation passed, or spiked, on their own. Predicting whether a major piece of legislation will pass has more to do with watching polling than who the special interests are.

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

do the super, duper wealthy think differently than meself or would they do the same?

History strongly suggests they would do the same. They do do the same unless forced not to, sometimes by market forces but more commonly through government regulation.

The free market forces businesses to cut costs wherever they can. So if there are no laws preventing it, pretty soon businesses are working people 60 hours a week for script that's only honored at the company store. These practices were not stopped because of a sudden enlightenment in the minds of the business owners--they were stopped through the blood of organized labor.

If there are no laws preventing it, soon businesses are producing shoddy products and fouling the environment--especially in a global economy where the shoppers have no idea of the details behind the production of their purchases.

Government, i.e, the people banded together, is necessary to regulate these free market forces and prevent them from tearing the economy apart. Excessive government, of course, will interfere too much and hurt the economy. So we have to find the right balance of just enough government regulation to ensure a sound economy.

Originally Posted by adaher

What people get wrong is in thinking that corporations can stop or significantly alter major legislation. At best, they can get particularly offensive parts altered that seriously affect their bottom line. But they aren't going to be able to get major legislation passed, or spiked, on their own. Predicting whether a major piece of legislation will pass has more to do with watching polling than who the special interests are.

The health insurance industry pretty much single-handedly stopped Clinton health care in the 1990s.
The banking industry is single-handedly stopping meaningful banking reform after the great financial implosion of 2008.
The tobacco industry single-handedly stopped regulations on tobacco for decades.
The mining industry has successfully avoided buying the rights to public minerals at free market prices for over a century.
The Medicare D prescription drug bill passed by the GOP was literally written by the pharmaceutical industry.

The list of industry preventing or getting choice legislation passed is a very, very, very, long one.

There is some level of wealth that frees an individual from the struggle for survival. The chase for food, shelter, clothing is finally met by some, and their need for money as a means to survival is no longer a motivator.

At that point those individuals want to provide for their future, and then finally for the establishment of their family as an on-going and sustained tribe.

After that, it then becomes a drive for power, and for moving up in the power chain. Whether one grooms the sons for Senator and President, as Prescott Bush and Joe Kennedy did, or one moves for behind-the-scenes power as the Koch family is doing, the lust for tribal power becomes the motivator. It no longer has to do with money, per se, but more with being able to impose one's will upon others.

Originally Posted by jpn

The list of industry preventing or getting choice legislation passed is a very, very, very, long one.

and yet somehow AARP... a major, for profit, insurance company... got dropped from your list of hate.

One more reason why this discussion is pointless.

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

ahoy me friends!
it be a fascinatin' and slightly depressin' read, but the statements 'o our two honorable posters, coupled with this article made me wonder...is thar indeed class warfare goin' on? its not just the rich vs the poor...but rather the super, duper fantastically wealthy 'o the world vs the rest 'o the planet?

If so, who be winning?

& shhhhh, don't tell anyone, it only be too depressing to imagine. Hey I got a good idea! Deny it! Do nothing. When rape is inevitable, might as well lie back & enjoy it.

(is not bloody likely I would anyhow. Just saying.)

Originally Posted by Dick Martin

...or one moves for behind-the-scenes power as the Koch family is doing, the lust for tribal power becomes the motivator. It no longer has to do with money, per se, but more with being able to impose one's will upon others.

Funny how George Soros ALWAYS gets left off your list.

Why is that?

Oh... wait... George Soros funds what you like!

Koch Brothers = bad money

George Soros = good money

Dick, hypocrisy is holding on line two for you...

Originally Posted by tsquare

... AARP... a major, for profit, insurance company......

Please document your assertion. I find no such fact when I look.

"About AARP

AARP is a nonprofit, nonpartisan membership organization for people age 50 and over.

AARP is dedicated to enhancing quality of life for all as we age. We lead positive social change and deliver value to members through information, advocacy and service. ..."