SCOTUS ready to announce bribery is legal

[MgoSam]

Remember McDonnell, the former governor of Virginia that was convicted for bribery? He's in front of the Supreme Court arguing that due to Citizens United, which allows all sorts of dark money into politics, he shouldn't have been convicted and it appears that justices agree with him. This is a guy who's wife wanted all sorts of gifts and couldn't get by on his salary and perks, which were impressive as he didn't need to worry about living expenses while governor.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/supreme-court-justices-appear-to-be-leaning-in-mcdonnells-favor-222533

[forummm]

They've already announced that bribery was legal. For decades. Except that they say it isn't bribery. And that all this unlimited money flowing into politics doesn't even create the "appearance of corruption".

Two members of the court liberal wing — Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan — expressed serious concerns that the government's stance could expose public officials to prosecution for all kinds of acts routinely performed for political donors.

Why is that a concern and not a benefit?

[cautiouspessimist]

They've already announced that bribery was legal. For decades. Except that they say it isn't bribery. And that all this unlimited money flowing into politics doesn't even create the "appearance of corruption".

Two members of the court liberal wing — Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan — expressed serious concerns that the government's stance could expose public officials to prosecution for all kinds of acts routinely performed for political donors.

Why is that a concern and not a benefit?

Blows my mind that it is legal to bribe government officials; as long as you have enough money, that is.

[MgoSam]

This is a concern for me because it raises costs for many things, leads to craptastic policies that enrich corporations instead of smaller businesses which in turn hurts the overall economy which in turn leads to lower yields for my index funds.

Additionally, bribes in the third-world, especially the Middle East, lead to unstable governments that aren't taking care of their citizens. This leads to the citizen's discontent which can manifest into fertile ground for terrorist organizations looking to recruit new people, and of course this can lead to more incidents of terrorists acts, which just sucks for everyone.

[TheGrimSqueaker]

They've already announced that bribery was legal. For decades. Except that they say it isn't bribery. And that all this unlimited money flowing into politics doesn't even create the "appearance of corruption".

Two members of the court liberal wing — Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan — expressed serious concerns that the government's stance could expose public officials to prosecution for all kinds of acts routinely performed for political donors.

Why is that a concern and not a benefit?

Indeed, I see it as more of an up-side. I do agree with the honorable Justices. The dark money isn't creating an appearance of corruption; it's creating an actuality of corruption.

[forummm]

They've already announced that bribery was legal. For decades. Except that they say it isn't bribery. And that all this unlimited money flowing into politics doesn't even create the "appearance of corruption".

Two members of the court liberal wing — Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan — expressed serious concerns that the government's stance could expose public officials to prosecution for all kinds of acts routinely performed for political donors.

Why is that a concern and not a benefit?

Indeed, I see it as more of an up-side. I do agree with the honorable Justices. The dark money isn't creating an appearance of corruption; it's creating an actuality of corruption.

I read it the opposite. The justices were thinking it was bad that politicians could be prosecuted for the stuff they routinely do.

[nobodyspecial]

I read it the opposite. The justices were thinking it was bad that politicians could be prosecuted for the stuff they routinely do.

Because it would make day-day politics impossible
Received funding from a union? Then you can't visit any union plant, can't support any industry with a union?
Received a donation from a finance fund that owns shares in corporation X? Then you cant be involved in any bill that involves the same industry as X?
It could also be used for spoilers. A republican makes a donation to a democrat on behalf of an environmental group - that politician now can't make any environmental rulings?   
   

[MoneyCat]

The plus side of this is that we can all have fun living in the world of a bad crime drama B-movie. I call dibs on Chuck Norris's character.

[forummm]

I read it the opposite. The justices were thinking it was bad that politicians could be prosecuted for the stuff they routinely do.

Because it would make day-day politics impossible
Received funding from a union? Then you can't visit any union plant, can't support any industry with a union?
Received a donation from a finance fund that owns shares in corporation X? Then you cant be involved in any bill that involves the same industry as X?
It could also be used for spoilers. A republican makes a donation to a democrat on behalf of an environmental group - that politician now can't make any environmental rulings?   
   

That sounds wonderful. They'd have to quickly pass public funding for elections to avoid jail :)

They could also rewrite the bribery statutes. A more likely outcome. But not my preferred response.

[Jack]

I read it the opposite. The justices were thinking it was bad that politicians could be prosecuted for the stuff they routinely do.

Because it would make day-day politics impossible
Received funding from a union? Then you can't visit any union plant, can't support any industry with a union?
Received a donation from a finance fund that owns shares in corporation X? Then you cant be involved in any bill that involves the same industry as X?
It could also be used for spoilers. A republican makes a donation to a democrat on behalf of an environmental group - that politician now can't make any environmental rulings?   
   

That sounds wonderful. They'd have to quickly pass public funding for elections to avoid jail :)

They could also rewrite the bribery statutes. A more likely outcome. But not my preferred response.

Exactly: if the law prohibits you from accepting funding while still being able to do your job, then the clear and obvious solution is to stop accepting funding! Which, not coincidentally, was exactly the point of such rules in the first place.

Y'all realize we don't actually need a constant barrage of political campaign ads for months on end in order to elect politicians, right?

[nobodyspecial]

Exactly: if the law prohibits you from accepting funding while still being able to do your job, then the clear and obvious solution is to stop accepting funding! Which, not coincidentally, was exactly the point of such rules in the first place.

Y'all realize we don't actually need a constant barrage of political campaign ads for months on end in order to elect politicians, right?

So candidates would be chosen from billionaires that don't need to pay for air-time.
.... hmmm .....

[RangerOne]

I read it the opposite. The justices were thinking it was bad that politicians could be prosecuted for the stuff they routinely do.

Because it would make day-day politics impossible
Received funding from a union? Then you can't visit any union plant, can't support any industry with a union?
Received a donation from a finance fund that owns shares in corporation X? Then you cant be involved in any bill that involves the same industry as X?
It could also be used for spoilers. A republican makes a donation to a democrat on behalf of an environmental group - that politician now can't make any environmental rulings?   
   

That sounds wonderful. They'd have to quickly pass public funding for elections to avoid jail :)

They could also rewrite the bribery statutes. A more likely outcome. But not my preferred response.

Exactly: if the law prohibits you from accepting funding while still being able to do your job, then the clear and obvious solution is to stop accepting funding! Which, not coincidentally, was exactly the point of such rules in the first place.

Y'all realize we don't actually need a constant barrage of political campaign ads for months on end in order to elect politicians, right?

It is when you have billion dollar presidential elections. Jeb Bush frickin mailed Ipads to potential downers with a campaign message... The money in our political system is leading us to elect ever more corrupt and entrenched politicians who are spending more time fundraising than passing and proposing untainted legislature.

The supreme court is really our only chance for salvation through the current system but unfortunately there are too many corporate conservatives seated right now and even our fearless democratic leaders, who are supposed to be liberal, would prefer to keep it that way.

[Yaeger]

This is a concern for me because it raises costs for many things, leads to craptastic policies that enrich corporations instead of smaller businesses which in turn hurts the overall economy which in turn leads to lower yields for my index funds.

Additionally, bribes in the third-world, especially the Middle East, lead to unstable governments that aren't taking care of their citizens. This leads to the citizen's discontent which can manifest into fertile ground for terrorist organizations looking to recruit new people, and of course this can lead to more incidents of terrorists acts, which just sucks for everyone.

Welcome to crony capitalism. The only way to prevent this isn't more rules and 'better' government control, it's less government power over the economy. Every time you vote for more and better government control, it only leads to more power for the corporations that fund and direct the government involvement. Who are the experts that the government needs to tailor policies to in order to achieve a desired impact? The experts in the economy - the companies.

Stop, let them succeed on the merit of competition in a free market and not how well they can successfully lobby regulatory interests.

[forummm]

This is a concern for me because it raises costs for many things, leads to craptastic policies that enrich corporations instead of smaller businesses which in turn hurts the overall economy which in turn leads to lower yields for my index funds.

Additionally, bribes in the third-world, especially the Middle East, lead to unstable governments that aren't taking care of their citizens. This leads to the citizen's discontent which can manifest into fertile ground for terrorist organizations looking to recruit new people, and of course this can lead to more incidents of terrorists acts, which just sucks for everyone.

Welcome to crony capitalism. The only way to prevent this isn't more rules and 'better' government control, it's less government power over the economy. Every time you vote for more and better government control, it only leads to more power for the corporations that fund and direct the government involvement. Who are the experts that the government needs to tailor policies to in order to achieve a desired impact? The experts in the economy - the companies.

Stop, let them succeed on the merit of competition in a free market and not how well they can successfully lobby regulatory interests.

While at a surface level this argument might feel good, when you actually think about it, it doesn't make sense. The tax code is the single biggest source of special interest benefits. There's about a trillion bucks per year in carve-outs for various interests. So even without any government programs or regulations, we're paying off the people with the best lobbyists and biggest campaign donors. And they can argue that these tax code gifts are actually decreasing government control over the economy--pointing in the direction you are advocating for. When really it's just putting their fingers on the scale.

You have to have a government. And it has to do at least some things (like defense, courts, etc). And it's highly valuable for it to do others (like funding research in the public interest, public health, etc). The best way to make sure it serves all of our interests is for the people running it to be interested in serving all of our interests and not just the interest of the select few. You do that by having the campaigns powered by broad support from their constituents and not just big piles of cash from the donor class.

[Jack]

Welcome to crony capitalism. The only way to prevent this isn't more rules and 'better' government control, it's less government power over the economy.

No, you're exactly wrong. Laissez-faire capitalism leads directly to monopoly, adulteration and other unsafe or unethical business practices, environmental contamination and other negative externalities, etc. Even Mr. Capitalism himself, Adam Smith, knew that.

You know, there's a reason why we have all this regulation you're so bent out of shape about. Sure, some of it may be due to corruption (caused by excessively-wealthy capitalists -- after all, for every government official who takes a bribe, there had to be someone on the other side offering it!), but the vast majority of it exists because the alternative was worse.

[Yaeger]

This is a concern for me because it raises costs for many things, leads to craptastic policies that enrich corporations instead of smaller businesses which in turn hurts the overall economy which in turn leads to lower yields for my index funds.

Additionally, bribes in the third-world, especially the Middle East, lead to unstable governments that aren't taking care of their citizens. This leads to the citizen's discontent which can manifest into fertile ground for terrorist organizations looking to recruit new people, and of course this can lead to more incidents of terrorists acts, which just sucks for everyone.

Welcome to crony capitalism. The only way to prevent this isn't more rules and 'better' government control, it's less government power over the economy. Every time you vote for more and better government control, it only leads to more power for the corporations that fund and direct the government involvement. Who are the experts that the government needs to tailor policies to in order to achieve a desired impact? The experts in the economy - the companies.

Stop, let them succeed on the merit of competition in a free market and not how well they can successfully lobby regulatory interests.

While at a surface level this argument might feel good, when you actually think about it, it doesn't make sense. The tax code is the single biggest source of special interest benefits. There's about a trillion bucks per year in carve-outs for various interests. So even without any government programs or regulations, we're paying off the people with the best lobbyists and biggest campaign donors. And they can argue that these tax code gifts are actually decreasing government control over the economy--pointing in the direction you are advocating for. When really it's just putting their fingers on the scale.

You have to have a government. And it has to do at least some things (like defense, courts, etc). And it's highly valuable for it to do others (like funding research in the public interest, public health, etc). The best way to make sure it serves all of our interests is for the people running it to be interested in serving all of our interests and not just the interest of the select few. You do that by having the campaigns powered by broad support from their constituents and not just big piles of cash from the donor class.

I never said to get rid of all government, that'd be ridiculous. I prefer a limited government, with the explicit roles assigned to it via the Constitution (courts, military, interstate commerce regulation, money supply, etc). The necessary stuff. When you start talking about nice-to-haves like Social Security, Medicare, the EPA, there's an inherent assumption that you're using government to provide these benefits at a cost. That cost, among other things, is reduced economic growth, reduced prosperity, and poverty. Central planning has been a historical failure time and time again. The marketplace does a far better job at allocating resources than government ever could. The only reasons socialism has ever been popular are under systems where you could receive benefits (other people's stuff) in exchange for giving someone, or a political party, power. That's bribery, that's really what's wrong with the political system because there's no counter-balance. It's why our government has grown and will continue to grow.

Plus, I feel like there's a misrepresentation about Capitalism, as if it doesn't serve the public good. That's a ridiculous argument. In order to gain in a system like capitalism (not crony capitalism) you need a voluntary exchange of services and good by both parties. It requires the producers, in order to gain a profit, to meet the needs of the public. Capitalism is the most moral system in the world, it works in concert with human nature. It rewards merit, not mediocrity. It encourages innovation, expansion, production.

It's why countries like Sweden have dramatically cut back social spending and regulatory burdens to encourage private industry growth, Capitalism. High social spending yields economic stagnation and it's why Europe is floundering and why they've been pushing low (or negative interest rates) to encourage growth. A country lives or dies by its long-term economic growth and we're happily sacrificing our future for today.

[forummm]

This is a concern for me because it raises costs for many things, leads to craptastic policies that enrich corporations instead of smaller businesses which in turn hurts the overall economy which in turn leads to lower yields for my index funds.

Additionally, bribes in the third-world, especially the Middle East, lead to unstable governments that aren't taking care of their citizens. This leads to the citizen's discontent which can manifest into fertile ground for terrorist organizations looking to recruit new people, and of course this can lead to more incidents of terrorists acts, which just sucks for everyone.

Welcome to crony capitalism. The only way to prevent this isn't more rules and 'better' government control, it's less government power over the economy. Every time you vote for more and better government control, it only leads to more power for the corporations that fund and direct the government involvement. Who are the experts that the government needs to tailor policies to in order to achieve a desired impact? The experts in the economy - the companies.

Stop, let them succeed on the merit of competition in a free market and not how well they can successfully lobby regulatory interests.

While at a surface level this argument might feel good, when you actually think about it, it doesn't make sense. The tax code is the single biggest source of special interest benefits. There's about a trillion bucks per year in carve-outs for various interests. So even without any government programs or regulations, we're paying off the people with the best lobbyists and biggest campaign donors. And they can argue that these tax code gifts are actually decreasing government control over the economy--pointing in the direction you are advocating for. When really it's just putting their fingers on the scale.

You have to have a government. And it has to do at least some things (like defense, courts, etc). And it's highly valuable for it to do others (like funding research in the public interest, public health, etc). The best way to make sure it serves all of our interests is for the people running it to be interested in serving all of our interests and not just the interest of the select few. You do that by having the campaigns powered by broad support from their constituents and not just big piles of cash from the donor class.

I never said to get rid of all government, that'd be ridiculous. I prefer a limited government, with the explicit roles assigned to it via the Constitution (courts, military, interstate commerce regulation, money supply, etc). The necessary stuff. When you start talking about nice-to-haves like Social Security, Medicare, the EPA, there's an inherent assumption that you're using government to provide these benefits at a cost. That cost, among other things, is reduced economic growth, reduced prosperity, and poverty. Central planning has been a historical failure time and time again. The marketplace does a far better job at allocating resources than government ever could. The only reasons socialism has ever been popular are under systems where you could receive benefits (other people's stuff) in exchange for giving someone, or a political party, power. That's bribery, that's really what's wrong with the political system because there's no counter-balance. It's why our government has grown and will continue to grow.

Plus, I feel like there's a misrepresentation about Capitalism, as if it doesn't serve the public good. That's a ridiculous argument. In order to gain in a system like capitalism (not crony capitalism) you need a voluntary exchange of services and good by both parties. It requires the producers, in order to gain a profit, to meet the needs of the public. Capitalism is the most moral system in the world, it works in concert with human nature. It rewards merit, not mediocrity. It encourages innovation, expansion, production.

It's why countries like Sweden have dramatically cut back social spending and regulatory burdens to encourage private industry growth, Capitalism. High social spending yields economic stagnation and it's why Europe is floundering and why they've been pushing low (or negative interest rates) to encourage growth. A country lives or dies by its long-term economic growth and we're happily sacrificing our future for today.

I feel like you didn't read what I wrote. I didn't have any comments about capitalism. I didn't say you were saying there should be no government. I was saying that since you do have to have a government, it will have at least some things for people to game. Whether that government is "limited" (a not very helpful term, since our current government is also "limited") to whatever size you deem appropriate or not, it still will have some revenue system to pay for it. And there will be plenty of places for people to get better treatment by influencing politicians. What I'm saying is that if you want to dramatically reduce this special interest behavior you need to cut off the mechanism by which it functions (campaign funding is the primary source). I think this is entirely compatible with your desire to have a smaller government. And, I think government would be smaller if we had public financing for elections. All this cronyism costs us trillions and would no longer be needed. I think everyone is in favor of that--except for the people on the receiving end of that money hose.

[Yaeger]

I feel like you didn't read what I wrote. I didn't have any comments about capitalism. I didn't say you were saying there should be no government. I was saying that since you do have to have a government, it will have at least some things for people to game. Whether that government is "limited" (a not very helpful term, since our current government is also "limited") to whatever size you deem appropriate or not, it still will have some revenue system to pay for it. And there will be plenty of places for people to get better treatment by influencing politicians. What I'm saying is that if you want to dramatically reduce this special interest behavior you need to cut off the mechanism by which it functions (campaign funding is the primary source). I think this is entirely compatible with your desire to have a smaller government. And, I think government would be smaller if we had public financing for elections. All this cronyism costs us trillions and would no longer be needed. I think everyone is in favor of that--except for the people on the receiving end of that money hose.

Ahh, I took the "You have to have a government. And it has to do at least some things (like defense, courts, etc)." as an implication, rather than a general descriptor and "The best way to make sure it serves all of our interests is for the people running it to be interested in serving all of our interests and not just the interest of the select few. " is a pretty obvious attack on capitalism.

Aside from that, you intend to leave in a system where people in power (politicians) can influence and provide benefits to their voters and contributors. You can't rail again businesses and the rich, and then not rail against the small donors and contributions. You have to have equality in the process. If you design a system where your freedom of speech (lobbying, contributions) is limited you're effectively allowing the majority to obtain greater influence against the exploitable minority. If you desire a system of impartial and equality, you need to limit the ability for votes, and the politicians elected by those votes, to use the political system to cater to the whims of the people at the expense of others.

The strength of a limited government is understanding the role it plays in curtailing money in politics, of crony capitalism, and providing equal benefit to ALL citizens regardless of socioeconomic status. It's not a grand redistributor of wealth or earnings. It's not the role of government to cater to special interest groups (corporate lobbyists, AARP, unions, environmentalists, etc).

[Allen Farlow]

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Albert Einstein

If you want to change things for the better stop voting for the same self-serving politicians. Not really rocket science, folks.

[Jack]

...the EPA...

The EPA needs to exist because otherwise otherwise polluters can inflict their garbage on me (ruining my property and my health) without me having any recourse.

Unless you want to make it legal to simply kill polluters and destroy whatever device is causing the pollution, of course -- then government would be limited equitably.

In fact, that's really the fundamental flaw in your reasoning, Yaeger: you propose eliminating all the legal safeguards that prevent entities with a lot of economic power from harming and abusing entities with little economic power, but do not provide for any way for those with little economic power to defend themselves. Apparently, you think they deserve to be shat upon and just have to accept it.

[forummm]

I feel like you didn't read what I wrote. I didn't have any comments about capitalism. I didn't say you were saying there should be no government. I was saying that since you do have to have a government, it will have at least some things for people to game. Whether that government is "limited" (a not very helpful term, since our current government is also "limited") to whatever size you deem appropriate or not, it still will have some revenue system to pay for it. And there will be plenty of places for people to get better treatment by influencing politicians. What I'm saying is that if you want to dramatically reduce this special interest behavior you need to cut off the mechanism by which it functions (campaign funding is the primary source). I think this is entirely compatible with your desire to have a smaller government. And, I think government would be smaller if we had public financing for elections. All this cronyism costs us trillions and would no longer be needed. I think everyone is in favor of that--except for the people on the receiving end of that money hose.

"The best way to make sure it serves all of our interests is for the people running it to be interested in serving all of our interests and not just the interest of the select few. " is a pretty obvious attack on capitalism.

Not at all. Do you think that capitalism requires that the government provide special rules to some small fraction of the population at the expense of everyone else? That's not a definition I'm familiar with.

Aside from that, you intend to leave in a system where people in power (politicians) can influence and provide benefits to their voters and contributors. You can't rail again businesses and the rich, and then not rail against the small donors and contributions. You have to have equality in the process. If you design a system where your freedom of speech (lobbying, contributions) is limited you're effectively allowing the majority to obtain greater influence against the exploitable minority. If you desire a system of impartial and equality, you need to limit the ability for votes, and the politicians elected by those votes, to use the political system to cater to the whims of the people at the expense of others.

The strength of a limited government is understanding the role it plays in curtailing money in politics, of crony capitalism, and providing equal benefit to ALL citizens regardless of socioeconomic status. It's not a grand redistributor of wealth or earnings. It's not the role of government to cater to special interest groups (corporate lobbyists, AARP, unions, environmentalists, etc).

I'm not even sure how to respond to this given that I don't see anything you're stating following logically from your premise. A system where politicians respond to the interest of everyone vs only the interests of the few limits the need for politicians to cater to the "whims" of people. Generally individuals have "whims" that change more quickly and large groups of people have slower changing interests.

And claiming that "limited" government is somehow magic in that it removes influence by special interests and makes everything equal doesn't actually make it true. You would still have the same ability for people to buy representatives to do their special interest bidding.

[Yaeger]

...the EPA...

The EPA needs to exist because otherwise otherwise polluters can inflict their garbage on me (ruining my property and my health) without me having any recourse.

Unless you want to make it legal to simply kill polluters and destroy whatever device is causing the pollution, of course -- then government would be limited equitably.

In fact, that's really the fundamental flaw in your reasoning, Yaeger: you propose eliminating all the legal safeguards that prevent entities with a lot of economic power from harming and abusing entities with little economic power, but do not provide for any way for those with little economic power to defend themselves. Apparently, you think they deserve to be shat upon and just have to accept it.

I'm not proposing we get rid of the justice system and the courts. They will have legal recourse if they're subjected to dangers and risks like at any other time in our history. Also, each state typically has a environment agency as well that regulates the states. For most of these systems there are multiple redundancies, getting rid of the federal level will push it down the states, which will give voters much more control on the system.

Secondly, you underestimate how companies care about meeting consumer and community needs. The needs of the stakeholders. There are typically entire departments devoted to looking at what the customer needs, addressing safety concerns, testing, and doing social research. I don't understand this perception you have where the 'little guy' is going to get shat upon, that they're vulnerable, and that they'll just accept it. That's what's happening now, more than at any time in our history. We have the highest regulatory burden in US history and more people are working part time and forced to take low paying jobs in US history. Our labor participation rate continues to shrink, we're at an all-time low in male labor participation. I'd hope that at some point you'd realize that people were much better off 50-60 years ago in a system with much less overbearing paternal protection and more economic freedom.

[Yaeger]

"The best way to make sure it serves all of our interests is for the people running it to be interested in serving all of our interests and not just the interest of the select few. " is a pretty obvious attack on capitalism.

Not at all. Do you think that capitalism requires that the government provide special rules to some small fraction of the population at the expense of everyone else? That's not a definition I'm familiar with.

Sorry, that looked like the common Socialist attack on the 'capitalist bourgeoisie' we've seen all throughout history. The few usually being equated with the rich. I misread what you said.

I'm not even sure how to respond to this given that I don't see anything you're stating following logically from your premise. A system where politicians respond to the interest of everyone vs only the interests of the few limits the need for politicians to cater to the "whims" of people. Generally individuals have "whims" that change more quickly and large groups of people have slower changing interests.

And claiming that "limited" government is somehow magic in that it removes influence by special interests and makes everything equal doesn't actually make it true. You would still have the same ability for people to buy representatives to do their special interest bidding.

They can buy all the representatives they want, if the representatives don't have any influence to manipulate the market it'll be like throwing money down the drain. You eliminate cronyism by removing the ability of elected officials to naively influence the market system. You can't eliminate it otherwise.

The passions of the mob as evidenced by Bernie and Trump supporters is a fairly obvious example of large groups of people with changing interests whipped up by politicians grabbing for power. Free college? National Healthcare? Secure the border? Fix the economy? Yeah.. okay. One of those things is a power explicitly granted to the federal government by the constitution, but no Trump. Please.

[Jack]

I'm not proposing we get rid of the justice system and the courts. They will have legal recourse if they're subjected to dangers and risks like at any other time in our history.

Oh, okay -- so if my neighbor pollutes my property, all I have to do is spend tens of thousands of dollars to litigate. But if I'm one of the vast majority of citizens who doesn't have tens of thousands of dollars (not to mention the time to spend in court instead of at my job), or if the harm is real but its magnitude is in that magic interval where litigating would cost more than the amount of compensation recovered times the likelihood of prevailing, then what? I guess I'm just screwed and my neighbor gets to fuck me over with impunity.

Secondly, you underestimate how companies care about meeting consumer and community needs.

That's the biggest load of bullshit coming from you yet! Apparently Love Canal, Bhopal, etc. are all figments of my imagination because companies would never discount "community needs!"

You are entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts. It has been proven over and over again that companies, as a group, do not care in the slightest about "community needs" if doing so would cost them even a penny in profit, and cannot be trusted to act responsibly on their own initiative. Continuing to believe such is to live in a fantasy world.

[Yaeger]

I'm not proposing we get rid of the justice system and the courts. They will have legal recourse if they're subjected to dangers and risks like at any other time in our history.

Oh, okay -- so if my neighbor pollutes my property, all I have to do is spend tens of thousands of dollars to litigate. But if I'm one of the vast majority of citizens who doesn't have tens of thousands of dollars (not to mention the time to spend in court instead of at my job), or if the harm is real but its magnitude is in that magic interval where litigating would cost more than the amount of compensation recovered times the likelihood of prevailing, then what? I guess I'm just screwed and my neighbor gets to fuck me over with impunity.

Secondly, you underestimate how companies care about meeting consumer and community needs.

That's the biggest load of bullshit coming from you yet! Apparently Love Canal, Bhopal, etc. are all figments of my imagination because companies would never discount "community needs!"

You are entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts. It has been proven over and over again that companies, as a group, do not care in the slightest about "community needs" if doing so would cost them even a penny in profit, and cannot be trusted to act responsibly on their own initiative. Continuing to believe such is to live in a fantasy world.

Firstly, get off your high-horse. How many lives have been saved through the actions of private industry? Every medical device used to save lives, the clothing that keeps you warm, the electricity to keep you cool, the naturally innovative push towards fuel efficient cars, the food you eat, etc. NONE of that was provided by government. Government doesn't create, it redistributes. The largest changes towards reducing human death and poverty has been via the actions of private industry. I'll accept occasional accidents like Love Canal (which I'd say wasn't because a company decided to do an immoral thing, but they just didn't know any better aided by an equally ignorant local and federal government). Incidents like this are dwarfed in comparison to the benefits of private industry growth and the overwhelming numbers of companies working to better humanity.

Secondly, Capitalism is based on a premise of free exchange. By definition that's meeting the needs of the public by providing a good or service in exchange. You need to stop blaming the companies and start putting equal blame on stakeholders. Why is the company somehow held to a higher moral standard than the American populace? You've created this idea of culpability because it's easier to blame a profit-based company instead of the people who work for the company, the public that supports the company, or the public need that the company is meeting.

As an aside, so I can understand your experience in company management in regards to these common concerns in business, what do you do for a living?

[Jack]

Secondly, Capitalism is based on a premise of free exchange. By definition that's meeting the needs of the public by providing a good or service in exchange.

Okay, tell you what: I'll stand on one side of you, set up a target on the other side, and "freely exchange" a bullet with the target. Both me and the target agreed to it so you couldn't possibly have any objection, right? In fact, it doesn't matter -- since you're not a party to the transaction you have no right to object anyway!

That's the short of insanity you've been arguing for, in case you couldn't tell.

By definition, the bizarro-world caricature of "capitalism" you hold so dear does not and cannot account for externalities. Until you recognize that, you can go fuck yourself.

MOD NOTE: Personal attack. Temp Ban Issued.

[Yaeger]

you can go fuck yourself.

Calm down, Jack. If the internet makes you angry, step away, cool off and then we can continue the conversation.

[Metric Mouse]

I'm not proposing we get rid of the justice system and the courts. They will have legal recourse if they're subjected to dangers and risks like at any other time in our history.

Oh, okay -- so if my neighbor pollutes my property, all I have to do is spend tens of thousands of dollars to litigate. But if I'm one of the vast majority of citizens who doesn't have tens of thousands of dollars (not to mention the time to spend in court instead of at my job), or if the harm is real but its magnitude is in that magic interval where litigating would cost more than the amount of compensation recovered times the likelihood of prevailing, then what? I guess I'm just screwed and my neighbor gets to fuck me over with impunity.

Wouldn't this be an argument about reforming the criminal justice system? If it is so expensive and time consuming to right a wrong, shouldn't that process be changed before worrying about reducing all the different kinds of wrongs that could be done?

[music lover]

They've already announced that bribery was legal. For decades. Except that they say it isn't bribery. And that all this unlimited money flowing into politics doesn't even create the "appearance of corruption".

Two members of the court liberal wing — Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan — expressed serious concerns that the government's stance could expose public officials to prosecution for all kinds of acts routinely performed for political donors.

Why is that a concern and not a benefit?

Blows my mind that it is legal to bribe government officials; as long as you have enough money, that is.

The Clinton Foundation

[winkeyman]

People bribe politicians because politicians have the ability to make or break entire companies and industries.

As long as politicians can make or break companies and industries, they will be bribed. There is no way around it. It's like the war on drugs. As long as there is a demand for drugs, there will be a supply.

[forummm]

People bribe politicians because politicians have the ability to make or break entire companies and industries.

As long as politicians can make or break companies and industries, they will be bribed. There is no way around it. It's like the war on drugs. As long as there is a demand for drugs, there will be a supply.

If you made the benefits of doing drugs go away, then people would stop demanding them. Similarly, if you can make the value of the bribe low, then it will happen less often. When elections are publicly funded, then there's no reason to sell out for the big donors, because they no longer have as much power. Your incentive is then to serve the public as a whole and not special interests.

[winkeyman]

People bribe politicians because politicians have the ability to make or break entire companies and industries.

As long as politicians can make or break companies and industries, they will be bribed. There is no way around it. It's like the war on drugs. As long as there is a demand for drugs, there will be a supply.

If you made the benefits of doing drugs go away, then people would stop demanding them. Similarly, if you can make the value of the bribe low, then it will happen less often. When elections are publicly funded, then there's no reason to sell out for the big donors, because they no longer have as much power. Your incentive is then to serve the public as a whole and not special interests.

It's not just about "campaign funds" though. That's a somewhat naïve way see it. I'm talking about the outright bribery that takes place in DC but isn't really talked about in polite company.

When Hillary Clinton is Secretary of State and representing the US in negotiations with Abu Dhabi. And Abu Dhabi pays Bill Clinton $1 million in "speaking fees" in the same time frame and magically gets its way in those negotiation.

When a Congressman votes for every defense spending increase he can in his career, and then when he loses his seat he is hired on at Raytheon as a "consultant" for $700,000 a year.

When a Senator wins her seat with a net worth of $300,000 and after 2 terms leaves office with a net worth of $6 million.

It's not just about campaign funds. That issue is almost a red herring that distracts from the outright bribery that is rampant in Washington.

[forummm]

People bribe politicians because politicians have the ability to make or break entire companies and industries.

As long as politicians can make or break companies and industries, they will be bribed. There is no way around it. It's like the war on drugs. As long as there is a demand for drugs, there will be a supply.

If you made the benefits of doing drugs go away, then people would stop demanding them. Similarly, if you can make the value of the bribe low, then it will happen less often. When elections are publicly funded, then there's no reason to sell out for the big donors, because they no longer have as much power. Your incentive is then to serve the public as a whole and not special interests.

It's not just about "campaign funds" though. That's a somewhat naïve way see it. I'm talking about the outright bribery that takes place in DC but isn't really talked about in polite company.

When Hillary Clinton is Secretary of State and representing the US in negotiations with Abu Dhabi. And Abu Dhabi pays Bill Clinton $1 million in "speaking fees" in the same time frame and magically gets its way in those negotiation.

When a Congressman votes for every defense spending increase he can in his career, and then when he loses his seat he is hired on at Raytheon as a "consultant" for $700,000 a year.

When a Senator wins her seat with a net worth of $300,000 and after 2 terms leaves office with a net worth of $6 million.

It's not just about campaign funds. That issue is almost a red herring that distracts from the outright bribery that is rampant in Washington.

The issue is mostly campaign funds. There are other issues like getting a giant paycheck once you've left office. And getting free trips. And having donors give to your charity (that also employs your family). And hiring staff that are in the lobbyist/industry/staffer revolving door. But it's mostly campaign funds.

[RosieTR]

Firstly, get off your high-horse. How many lives have been saved through the actions of private industry? Every medical device used to save lives, the clothing that keeps you warm, the electricity to keep you cool, the naturally innovative push towards fuel efficient cars, the food you eat, etc. NONE of that was provided by government. Government doesn't create, it redistributes. The largest changes towards reducing human death and poverty has been via the actions of private industry.

The government had quite a hand in much of the early stages of most of those examples. Medical devices-plenty of government research dollars to support the basic research prior to the invention. Plenty of government-required testing prior to wide distribution. Also, protections for animals that are usually used in early stage inventions.
Clothing the government may have had little to do with, I'll give you that.
Electricity: government-funded research into nuclear energy, solar energy, cleaner coal-burning, geology which lead to ways of getting natural gas as a viable fuel source, to name a few. Also the government provides standards so that you can plug in your hairdryer in Seattle same as New York, same as Hawaii, same as Florida. All without getting shocked, which is not something that happens in every country.
Fuel-efficient cars: similar to electricity, there are government funded research threads that have assisted this. Never mind all the government sponsored education of the engineers and such for this and plenty of other industries.

When I see examples of countries with limited governments, they are generally not places I would want to live. Especially when compared to moderate socialistic places including Europe, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. As for local control, I think it generates a chance for weird mob mentality that can infect small pools of individuals. If you've ever dealt with an HOA, the smallest governing body of all, you have seen the example.

[RosieTR]

Secondly, you underestimate how companies care about meeting consumer and community needs. The needs of the stakeholders. There are typically entire departments devoted to looking at what the customer needs, addressing safety concerns, testing, and doing social research. I don't understand this perception you have where the 'little guy' is going to get shat upon, that they're vulnerable, and that they'll just accept it. That's what's happening now, more than at any time in our history. We have the highest regulatory burden in US history and more people are working part time and forced to take low paying jobs in US history. Our labor participation rate continues to shrink, we're at an all-time low in male labor participation. I'd hope that at some point you'd realize that people were much better off 50-60 years ago in a system with much less overbearing paternal protection and more economic freedom.

I'd say companies care about meeting consumer and community needs when it aligns with something the consumer or community will pay for. There are plenty of things people need that companies do not provide. More sleep, for example.

As for the "everyone was better 50-60 years ago" that's bullshit. White, straight, Christian men were much better off 50-60 years ago, if they didn't get drafted for war or something. People of color, women, single mothers or fathers, and various other people were not better off, economically or socially. It's certainly not perfect now, but it's much better than 1966.

[nobodyspecial]

Clothing the government may have had little to do with, I'll give you that.

It certainly raised labor costs in the cotton picking industry.

But it had made up for it by subsidizing cotton farmers to the extent that your made in china $2 T-shirt is probably American cotton.
Funny how all parties seem to naturally support large conservative voting blocks in early primary states

[forummm]

Firstly, get off your high-horse. How many lives have been saved through the actions of private industry? Every medical device used to save lives, the clothing that keeps you warm, the electricity to keep you cool, the naturally innovative push towards fuel efficient cars, the food you eat, etc. NONE of that was provided by government. Government doesn't create, it redistributes. The largest changes towards reducing human death and poverty has been via the actions of private industry.

I find it interesting that the very examples you picked are actually highly dependent on government. Most original medical research is paid for by the NIH and conducted in tax-exempt universities, largely with graduate student labor (student loans, grants, etc). Electricity is a very highly regulated sector (more state than federal). And deregulating the sector was the cause of massive problems in California a couple decades ago (remember Enron and the rolling blackouts across the state?). The government has literally been dictating higher fuel efficiency standards for decades as well, and the industry fights them all the way (CAFE standards if you are interested). And the government is enabling the more widespread adoption of EVs by providing a huge tax credit. And government subsidizes a huge amount of the food that you eat (dairy, corn, wheat, soy, etc, which go into everything) and the cotton that goes into your clothes. And the oil and gas industry as well (both energy and materials for clothes.

And the largest causes of improved health and reduced mortality? Public health.

Since 1900, the average lifespan of persons in the United States has lengthened by greater than 30 years; 25 years of this gain are attributable to advances in public health (1).

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00056796.htm

[winkeyman]

Firstly, get off your high-horse. How many lives have been saved through the actions of private industry? Every medical device used to save lives, the clothing that keeps you warm, the electricity to keep you cool, the naturally innovative push towards fuel efficient cars, the food you eat, etc. NONE of that was provided by government. Government doesn't create, it redistributes. The largest changes towards reducing human death and poverty has been via the actions of private industry.

I find it interesting that the very examples you picked are actually highly dependent on government. Most original medical research is paid for by the NIH and conducted in tax-exempt universities, largely with graduate student labor (student loans, grants, etc). Electricity is a very highly regulated sector (more state than federal). And deregulating the sector was the cause of massive problems in California a couple decades ago (remember Enron and the rolling blackouts across the state?). The government has literally been dictating higher fuel efficiency standards for decades as well, and the industry fights them all the way (CAFE standards if you are interested). And the government is enabling the more widespread adoption of EVs by providing a huge tax credit. And government subsidizes a huge amount of the food that you eat (dairy, corn, wheat, soy, etc, which go into everything) and the cotton that goes into your clothes. And the oil and gas industry as well (both energy and materials for clothes.

And the largest causes of improved health and reduced mortality? Public health.

Since 1900, the average lifespan of persons in the United States has lengthened by greater than 30 years; 25 years of this gain are attributable to advances in public health (1).

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00056796.htm

forummm,

I don't have much to add about the core of the discussion you are having with Yaeger, BUT...

A couple of the examples you use imply that by NOT taxing certain activities, the government is supporting them. This is a huge pet peeve of mine. If the government taxes a particular activity less than most or not at all, they are not SUPPORTING that activity. They are just not actively trying to inhibit it. That's a huge difference. Letting someone keep the money they earned is NOT a subsidy.

Also, subsidizing certain products (like corn) might make those products cheaper, but it does at learn an equal amount of harm to consumers in other ways.

[forummm]

Firstly, get off your high-horse. How many lives have been saved through the actions of private industry? Every medical device used to save lives, the clothing that keeps you warm, the electricity to keep you cool, the naturally innovative push towards fuel efficient cars, the food you eat, etc. NONE of that was provided by government. Government doesn't create, it redistributes. The largest changes towards reducing human death and poverty has been via the actions of private industry.

I find it interesting that the very examples you picked are actually highly dependent on government. Most original medical research is paid for by the NIH and conducted in tax-exempt universities, largely with graduate student labor (student loans, grants, etc). Electricity is a very highly regulated sector (more state than federal). And deregulating the sector was the cause of massive problems in California a couple decades ago (remember Enron and the rolling blackouts across the state?). The government has literally been dictating higher fuel efficiency standards for decades as well, and the industry fights them all the way (CAFE standards if you are interested). And the government is enabling the more widespread adoption of EVs by providing a huge tax credit. And government subsidizes a huge amount of the food that you eat (dairy, corn, wheat, soy, etc, which go into everything) and the cotton that goes into your clothes. And the oil and gas industry as well (both energy and materials for clothes.

And the largest causes of improved health and reduced mortality? Public health.

Since 1900, the average lifespan of persons in the United States has lengthened by greater than 30 years; 25 years of this gain are attributable to advances in public health (1).

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00056796.htm

forummm,

I don't have much to add about the core of the discussion you are having with Yaeger, BUT...

A couple of the examples you use imply that by NOT taxing certain activities, the government is supporting them. This is a huge pet peeve of mine. If the government taxes a particular activity less than most or not at all, they are not SUPPORTING that activity. They are just not actively trying to inhibit it. That's a huge difference. Letting someone keep the money they earned is NOT a subsidy.

Also, subsidizing certain products (like corn) might make those products cheaper, but it does at learn an equal amount of harm to consumers in other ways.

Not quite sure what you mean. I mention "tax-exempt universities" as a subcomponent of the research point. And a tax credit is essentially a gift to subsidize the car purchase (not a reduction in taxes on the car--a rebate of other taxes you had on income unrelated to the car).

I don't know if the harm of subsidizing corn is equal or not. My guess is that it's actually doing far more harm than good. But that's a complicated analysis to conduct.

[Metric Mouse]

I don't know if the harm of subsidizing corn is equal or not. My guess is that it's actually doing far more harm than good. But that's a complicated analysis to conduct.

Without going super in depth; what harm comes from subsidizing corn? I am missing something, and am genuinely interested.  From what I can see: Corn subsidies ensure that producers are motivated to grow enough to supply everyone's demand while keeping costs to end users lower. As a food product it's useful for all sorts of things for both human food and food for tasty things humans eat, as well as lowering carbon emissions via ethanol mixing.  For this I can see it's pretty much a net win for all the people of America - like a lot of taxes, everyone in society gets far, far, far more out of it than they put in, on a per-dollar basis. The only argument I can think of is that the tax money could be spent on other programs, but I don't see the inherent harm that you obviously do?

Serious question, as I feel like I'm missing a point of view on this topic.

[forummm]

I don't know if the harm of subsidizing corn is equal or not. My guess is that it's actually doing far more harm than good. But that's a complicated analysis to conduct.

Without going super in depth; what harm comes from subsidizing corn? I am missing something, and am genuinely interested.  From what I can see: Corn subsidies ensure that producers are motivated to grow enough to supply everyone's demand while keeping costs to end users lower. As a food product it's useful for all sorts of things for both human food and food for tasty things humans eat, as well as lowering carbon emissions via ethanol mixing.  For this I can see it's pretty much a net win for all the people of America - like a lot of taxes, everyone in society gets far, far, far more out of it than they put in, on a per-dollar basis. The only argument I can think of is that the tax money could be spent on other programs, but I don't see the inherent harm that you obviously do?

Serious question, as I feel like I'm missing a point of view on this topic.

Obesity, diabetes, metabolic syndrome, etc. Super cheap corn is forcing producers to shove it into anything they can. One product is HFCS, which is shoved into everything now (thousands of food products). And those products are also artificially cheap as a result. All these refined sugars are causing the enormous increases in obesity, diabetes, and attendant health problems. The healthcare costs alone cost an order of magnitude more than the subsidy cost.

IIRC we have something like 200 million acres of corn being grown in the US and only 200 thousand of broccoli and cabbage (I forget the exact vegetables and stats, but it was something like that--3 orders of magnitude difference). We'd be a lot healthier if that imbalance was better.

And corn-based ethanol is also a negative at this point. It's unclear if it actually reduces any carbon emissions. And it costs more than burning gas.

[Metric Mouse]

I don't know if the harm of subsidizing corn is equal or not. My guess is that it's actually doing far more harm than good. But that's a complicated analysis to conduct.

Without going super in depth; what harm comes from subsidizing corn? I am missing something, and am genuinely interested.  From what I can see: Corn subsidies ensure that producers are motivated to grow enough to supply everyone's demand while keeping costs to end users lower. As a food product it's useful for all sorts of things for both human food and food for tasty things humans eat, as well as lowering carbon emissions via ethanol mixing.  For this I can see it's pretty much a net win for all the people of America - like a lot of taxes, everyone in society gets far, far, far more out of it than they put in, on a per-dollar basis. The only argument I can think of is that the tax money could be spent on other programs, but I don't see the inherent harm that you obviously do?

Serious question, as I feel like I'm missing a point of view on this topic.

Obesity, diabetes, metabolic syndrome, etc. Super cheap corn is forcing producers to shove it into anything they can. One product is HFCS, which is shoved into everything now (thousands of food products). And those products are also artificially cheap as a result. All these refined sugars are causing the enormous increases in obesity, diabetes, and attendant health problems. The healthcare costs alone cost an order of magnitude more than the subsidy cost.

IIRC we have something like 200 million acres of corn being grown in the US and only 200 thousand of broccoli and cabbage (I forget the exact vegetables and stats, but it was something like that--3 orders of magnitude difference). We'd be a lot healthier if that imbalance was better.

And corn-based ethanol is also a negative at this point. It's unclear if it actually reduces any carbon emissions. And it costs more than burning gas.

Thank you for explaining.

[forummm]

There are also problems for other countries. Since US crops are so cheap, it's impossible for farmers in developing countries to compete with them. So they have no path to economic development. That has all kinds of problems for them, and some for us. Wars, disease, poverty, unstable governments, etc. To make matters worse, some other developed nations (like Europe) also subsidize their crops, so the undeveloped nations are getting it from all sides.