• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Robert Reich on Free Markets

Gavin, I think your missing an inevitable feature of human nature. People cheat to get ahead. Not that everyone cheats, as a matter of fact I'd say that most people are pretty honest. The problem, as has already been pointed out, is that you're looking at individual transactions, but that's not a "market". T

On the macro level businesses are always looking for ways in improve profits. Innovate, advertise, branch out into new areas or be dishonest. The last one has the highest return on investment.

If being dishonest allows to increase profits without spending anything, then it's ok to assume that those profits can be turned back into the business in a way that gives a company a competitive advantage.

Without enforcement (rules) and a body to carry them out, the markets will always succumb to the lowest common denominator.

The logical conclusion is, who does society trust to enforce the rules? Generally a body that everyone has a say in. Government.

You're missing another inevitable feature of human nature. Nobody likes a cheater. Being dishonest is usually only a short term gain, unless you have friends in power to protect you from the market. The enforcement feature is the market itself, more specifically the ability of those in it to choose other options.
 
I see your point regarding "movies" with political agendas. I don't support the idea regardless of who makes them, someone will interpret them as propaganda. However, it occurs to me that tackling this problem at the end is like trying to put the smoke back into the fire.

It occurs to me that there are groups on both ends of the political spectrum that spend more time trying to convince the populace who to blame for their problems, then actually working to solve them. The problem in my mind revolves around the fact that the problem is a system almost as complex as the weather. Most people don't take the try to understand the problem, especially when their or corporate and private interests with vast resources who are eager to tell you who's at fault.

This problem has solutions, but they require a level of understand that most people don't possess or are willing to commit to learn.

The solution in my mind involves education, cultural change, moral change and the willingness of the average person to commit themselves to activism rather then just watching the "news" so they know who to complain about tomorrow at work during coffee breaks.

I suppose that depends on what, exactly, you believe the problem to be. Some believe the problem is that there's too much influence of money in politics. I believe there's too much influence of politics in nearly everything. If you want to get into a pissing match about who can say what, when, and how, there is no good end that can possibly come of it. Whoever is in power will use that power to their advantage (See the FEC ruling on Michael Moore's movie vs. Citizens United's movie, for example). McCain/Feingold was called "The Incumbent Protection Act" by critics for good reason.

Let's assume that corporate/union donations to campaigns are the problem and that we've completely outlawed them. What's to stop someone from putting together a "news organization" and filling their publications with only news articles that make one candidate look bad, excluding anything that might harm their preferred candidate. How would you intend to police that? If you can't/won't police that, what makes you think it would be more fair to deny any other group's right to speak?

I don't assume that if the system were more transparent and our education system were vastly improved and our cultural and moral values were focused on things like fairness, equality and the idea that a hard days work should entitle you to a reasonable standard of living that politicians could not be trusted to implement rules that are in line with their constituents that elected them.

I realize that we are a long way from that, so the question is, how do we get their? I refuse to assume that this ideal is impossible.

If all of those things you mentioned in the first part of the above statement were in place, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Who would you say is a stereotypical politician? Bill Clinton, Rick Perry, John Edwards, Nancy Pelosi, Newt Gingrich, Barack Obama, etc. Would you personally trust any one of them with anything of any importance to you? If so, I have some property I'd like to sell you...if not, why would you trust any of them to limit someone else's political speech in a way that has any semblance of fairness? They can walk out to a microphone and be on TV pretty much any time they choose...

I see your point, this goes back to the point I made earlier, but at some point, a point I think we're approaching, information is monopolized by those with access and the resources to exploit media. The 1% have motive, opportunity and are much easier to organize around a common theme, then the the bottom, who spend 1/2 of their waking hours trying to makes ends meet. The other 1/2 is spent taking care of kids, running errands, maintaining their home. It's extremely hard for the average person to compete.

Exploitation of the media has been happening as long as media have existed. What rules can we propose to prevent it that will not invest an enormous advantage in incumbent politicians? I'm all ears.

Citizens united is simply a vehicle for those with money to promote ideas that benefit them often at the expense of those at the bottom. Even if what you said is 100% true, the system is unsustainable and needs to be reformed.

McCain/Feingold was a vehicle for those in power to hold advantage over their challengers at the expense of, well everyone who isn't in power. Citizens United came as a challenge to that power. How, exactly, is that a bad thing?
 
There are plenty of other possibilities. It's just that most progressives think they would prefer the victory gin.

Dishonesty becomes you.

Meantime, there is no such thing as a "free market" except in the overheated minds of libertarians who live vicariously through the rich and who hope one day, to have servants, in their compounds.
 
You're missing another inevitable feature of human nature. Nobody likes a cheater. Being dishonest is usually only a short term gain, unless you have friends in power to protect you from the market. The enforcement feature is the market itself, more specifically the ability of those in it to choose other options.

There is no data for this (of course). Just market evangelist stream of consciousness. Cheaters do quite well when not regulated (which is why we regulate).

But in any case, the entire post is meaningless due to market flaws, such an imbalances in information. Your health insurance company can cheat you, and due to your lack of information, you'd never even know.
 
There is no data for this (of course). Just market evangelist stream of consciousness. Cheaters do quite well when not regulated (which is why we regulate).

But in any case, the entire post is meaningless due to market flaws, such an imbalances in information. Your health insurance company can cheat you, and due to your lack of information, you'd never even know.

Your government is cheating you, and you don't even care...just keep the victory gin and the hate flowing.
 
Dishonesty becomes you.

Meantime, there is no such thing as a "free market" except in the overheated minds of libertarians who live vicariously through the rich and who hope one day, to have servants, in their compounds.

There are plenty of other possibilities. It's just that most progressives think they would prefer the victory gin.


Which part of that do you think is dishonest? The part about other alternatives, or the part about the gin? Either way, it's pretty rich coming from you.
 
You're missing another inevitable feature of human nature. Nobody likes a cheater. Being dishonest is usually only a short term gain, unless you have friends in power to protect you from the market. The enforcement feature is the market itself, more specifically the ability of those in it to choose other options.

"Unless you have friends in power to protect you".

That is an interesting statement. The extra profits made from unethical behavior can and have been used to buy lots of "friends". Even if you remove the politicians oversight over business and rely on the legal system alone, again you have people deciding the fate of other people. Except now, judges, for the most part, aren't elected so many have little to fear about pleasing constituents. For those judges that are elected, they need funds for campaigns, and well, you know where this is going.

Moving on.....

There is more than one kind of cheating. Your assuming that companies just cheat consumers and when they find out they move on. What about a company that illegally disposes of toxic waste? Or exploits the environment in some other way to reduce costs like dumping tires at sea? They'll get caught you say? Maybe, maybe not. What about a third parties acting on behalf of a company willing to shelter their customer from any wrong doing? In many cases a company can and has cheated for years before getting caught, and the penalty rarely exceeds the profits made form cheating. What about companies that exploit employees? The market generally doesn't care about employees as long as the consumer gets a low price. Sure there are some extreme examples where consumers are made aware of things like child labor, but generally speaking employers can exploit workers and no one cares.

The bottom line is that it'snot that difficult, when you have money to obfuscate to the point that the general public doesn't know what to think. Global climate change is a PERFECT example. There is as much if not more misinformation out there, that people don't know what to think.

There are innumerable other ways that companies are dishonest or unethical that consumers aren't immediately aware of. Companies are increasingly making the decision that they have a fiduciary duty to exploit the system by what ever means necessary in order to maximize profits and maintain competitiveness. Less regulation will lead to greater exploitation and because unethical behavior often brings in more profits than innovation, companies are incentivized to think of new and increasingly creative ways to exploit the system.
 
"Unless you have friends in power to protect you".

That is an interesting statement. The extra profits made from unethical behavior can and have been used to buy lots of "friends". Even if you remove the politicians oversight over business and rely on the legal system alone, again you have people deciding the fate of other people. Except now, judges, for the most part, aren't elected so many have little to fear about pleasing constituents. For those judges that are elected, they need funds for campaigns, and well, you know where this is going.

I'm not proposing to remove oversight. I believe detailed policies should be more of a local affair. My preference would be for people in Washington to have almost no impact on the public in general.

Elected judges are local judges, and are infinitely more accountable to the people they have sway over. Harry Reid can dick me over ten ways to Sunday and I have no say in whether continues to wield his considerable power over me.

There is more than one kind of cheating. Your assuming that companies just cheat consumers and when they find out they move on. What about a company that illegally disposes of toxic waste? Or exploits the environment in some other way to reduce costs like dumping tires at sea? They'll get caught you say? Maybe, maybe not. What about a third parties acting on behalf of a company willing to shelter their customer from any wrong doing? In many cases a company can and has cheated for years before getting caught, and the penalty rarely exceeds the profits made form cheating. What about companies that exploit employees? The market generally doesn't care about employees as long as the consumer gets a low price. Sure there are some extreme examples where consumers are made aware of things like child labor, but generally speaking employers can exploit workers and no one cares.

All valid points. Also all require public knowledge for any consequences to occur. I'm not against laws, or the enforcement of them. I'm against politicians using laws to enrich themselves and their friends. Judges have the opportunity to do this as well. There would be very few, if any, career politicians if there were nothing but the joy of public service to be gained by it. So how can we best make them accountable to their constituents? By preventing corporate campaign donations? How does that improve transparency or accountablility?

The bottom line is that it'snot that difficult, when you have money to obfuscate to the point that the general public doesn't know what to think. Global climate change is a PERFECT example. There is as much if not more misinformation out there, that people don't know what to think.

Agreed. The same applies to governments. Whether anyone admits it or not, politicians have created a market for science that agrees with their preferred positions. Global climate change is a good example, but I think economics is a better example. Businesses aren't the only ones who pay people to tell them what they want to hear...

There are innumerable other ways that companies are dishonest or unethical that consumers aren't immediately aware of. Companies are increasingly making the decision that they have a fiduciary duty to exploit the system by what ever means necessary in order to maximize profits and maintain competitiveness. Less regulation will lead to greater exploitation and because unethical behavior often brings in more profits than innovation, companies are incentivized to think of new and increasingly creative ways to exploit the system.

So let's make the consumers aware and then let them decide. Less regulation will not necessarily lead to greater exploitation if unethical behavior isn't tolerated. The number and significance of regulations has two possible correlations with the level of unethical behavior. The system, as it stands, encourages unethical behavior both by purposely crafted legislation and selective enforcement of otherwise fair legislation. Certainly rules & regulations encourage ethical behavior if they are simple & fair because everyone understands them and can see when they've been broken. Why is that? Because nobody likes a cheater. Campaign donations are a result, not a cause.
 
Which part of that do you think is dishonest? The part about other alternatives, or the part about the gin? Either way, it's pretty rich coming from you.

I love it when conservatives try so hard to attack progressives but can't think up even a single original insult.

It's like watching Sarah Palin at a spelling bee.
 
I love it when conservatives try so hard to attack progressives but can't think up even a single original insult.

It's like watching Sarah Palin at a spelling bee.
Sarah Palin? I expected you to make a joke about Trig...you're getting soft.
 
Sarah Palin? I expected you to make a joke about Trig...you're getting soft.

Hey, that's at least original. Well not so much. But a bracing attempt at a defense of Palin is always worth reading.
 
Hey, that's at least original. Well not so much. But a bracing attempt at a defense of Palin is always worth reading.

You can't make yourself look big by trying to make others seem small. Was that worth reading?
 
You can't make yourself look big by trying to make others seem small. Was that worth reading?

No, just trite rightwing pap.

But what I should have said was the Trig would have beaten Palin in a spelling bee. I regret missing that joke.
 
Power corrupts.

So give us your big solution that has the power to change policy, but no power since power corrupts. This should be interesting....I'm all ears (eyes really).

Politicians and law enforcement should automatically receive TWICE the minimum sentence for any corruption convictions. That would be a good start.

In china, when a corrupt gov't official is caught, they march him right outside and immediately "term limit" him.
 
Politicians and law enforcement should automatically receive TWICE the minimum sentence for any corruption convictions. That would be a good start.

In china, when a corrupt gov't official is caught, they march him right outside and immediately "term limit" him.

Yeah, but that only happens when they don't have any friends left in the party.
 
Yeah, but that only happens when they don't have any friends left in the party.

I'll defer to your expertise on the communist party of china and how it operates, then.

The point is that there are ways to significantly decrease corruption among elected officials.
 
I'll defer to your expertise on the communist party of china and how it operates, then.

The point is that there are ways to significantly decrease corruption among elected officials.

That's not expertise, it's just how political power works.
 
Politicians and law enforcement should automatically receive TWICE the minimum sentence for any corruption convictions. That would be a good start.

In china, when a corrupt gov't official is caught, they march him right outside and immediately "term limit" him.

I agree. No system can work with official corruption. Indeed it is a defining factor of failed states. A corrupt official not only harms those he betrays, but the entire system.
 
I agree. No system can work with official corruption. Indeed it is a defining factor of failed states. A corrupt official not only harms those he betrays, but the entire system.

So if you recognize that why to you trust Government which is always corrupt the more powerful it gets? You should be supporting State rights and Local power. :lol:
 
So if you recognize that why to you trust Government which is always corrupt the more powerful it gets? You should be supporting State rights and Local power. :lol:

Because tomatoes kite sidle mushrooms?

What an incredible nonsequitur.
 
Why? You didn't answer my question..

Yes, I did. I answered a nonsequitur with another. If you want to ask a cogent question, you have to stop using your antigummit crib sheet.
 
Yes, I did. I answered a nonsequitur with another. If you want to ask a cogent question, you have to stop using your antigummit crib sheet.

Or how about you answer a question instead... or maybe you are avoiding it because you can't answer it.
 
Back
Top Bottom