Granny D here. I love this blog world–you make a general statement and then some people write a book for you about it. Thank you all for your comments on protectionism. I am totally persuaded and will now stop pruning my garden, leaving behind my old fashioned notion that editing and flowering are necessary partners.
What does continue to bother me, however, is the unsaid notion that labor is one of the several components of manufacturing, when, in fact, it is us. Economists (and their hunchbacked evil blogger assistants) tend to make such deadly abstractions that they lose sight of this, as if the Economy were a demigod or at least a being unto itself, whose health we must serve by sacrificing our own.
That abstraction is most likely to happen where the people do not have the means to represent their own interests. So, as a democracy becomes less so– say, as a result of the imposition of special interest campaign donors, a corporate-dominated news media, and so forth– the jobs and needs of the people are more likely to be considered as abstractions and as replaceable moving parts, rather than as real lives. The conversation in many of the blogger replies reflects this abstraction in favor of the demigod Market or the demigod Economy.
The rationalization that the Good will Eventually be served in a widespread manner is rather a crock, as Eventually, like the Leisure Society, never really comes. Let’s have a democracy that really expresses our need for good jobs and health care and all the rest, and see if, in fact, we don’t craft a better society than the horror show now being crafted by the abstracted free market. Wouldn’t real democracy be a better kind of free market–with We the People really free? It is a given that nations with the most poverty have the least democracy, as people do not chose to be poor and exploited if they have a say in it. Right now, we do not have a say in outsourcing, for example, not because a natural market force is working in the world, but because our interests are not being represented, and corporate interests are. It is fairly simple, despite all the charts and books, and as our wise Yogi said, you can see a lot just by looking.
Lawrence, excellent post – you have hit the proverbial nail right on the head – people like to abstract other people especially when they do not identify with them or do not want to approach things with any humanisitic concers. Collectively, we are the economy – full stop.
“That abstraction is most likely to happen where the people do not have the means to represent their own interests. So, as a democracy becomes less so– say, as a result of the imposition of special interest campaign donors, a corporate-dominated news media, and so forth– the jobs and needs of the people are more likely to be considered as abstractions and as replaceable moving parts, rather than as real lives. The conversation in many of the blogger replies reflects this abstraction in favor of the demigod Market or the demigod Economy”
Your words above remind me that Economists and many of us behave as if all of our impacts to externalities do not matter.
Well Put Indeed!
I dare not to delay so I ordered the book today …
I meant to comment on the last blog entry as I was reading a comment and it struck me funny, might apply here also. Someone said something along the lines of “Today you can buy more stuff to put in your house”. What is the fanaticism with having more “stuff”. Thats all I need is more stuff. I came to the realization a couple of years ago that I don’t want anything new. Granted I work as a computer programmer and have stuff, I tend to only spend money now to replace things that are broken. Coupled with the fact that things aren’t made like they use too, how are companies going to maintain revenue streams if they built a quality product that never broke? If I was the sole decision maker in my house (married with 7 children) there would be no tv/cable/dvd’s in it. What ever happened to the simple life where we held the company of other humans higher than having stuff?
Actually, I prefer the schools of economics (institutional and behavioral) that remember markets are groups of people. My main point is that attempts to regulate the economy often have unintended effects, so it makes sense that any regulation must pass a sniff test.
For instance, during the Great Depression, FDR decided to create a minimum wage. I have no problem with minimum wage laws, and FDR simply wanted to guarantee that people received fair wages. However, the law had the effect of making it illegal to hire anybody cheaply. At a time when unemployment was near 30%, the federal government actually made it harder to create jobs.
Sound familiar?
For all his failings, Bush did recognize that the Kyoto treaty would require far more from America than it does from other countries. So, during a soft, recessionary economy, he decided to not implement it, and is still ridiculed for that decision.
I have no personal qualms about environmental laws. We have them because Americans are smart enough to notice the environment needs to be managed properly. In fact, creating jobs at the expense of the environment can be a really bad decision. I do have a problem with passing laws that will likely affect the economy without considering if the cost is too high.
And I have a particular problem with passing laws meant to affect the economy without thinking through their likely effects. For instance, off the top of your head, who creates minimum wage jobs? McDonald’s, Wal Mart, and small businesses. Who takes those jobs? High school students, retirees who only want part-time work to supplement their income from a broken Social Security system, and 14-year-old children of the small business’s founders. These are the kinds of companies that either raise prices or fire people when the minimum wage goes up. And as part of Kerry’s recovery package, he wants to raise the minimum wage 50%. Does that pass the sniff test? Even if McDonald’s and Wal Mart only raise prices, where will I get the money to pay for those higher prices? And small businesses have a hard enough time making a profit why make it harder?
He also wants to raise taxes on businesses. Perhaps this can make sense in certain circumstances. But consider the job losses that those raised taxes could lead to. Money spent on taxes can’t be spent on wages. I’m confident that many businesses have already run studies and determined the cost of doing business in various countries, and have decided that if taxes increase to a certain dollar amount per year for those companies, they will designate an office building in Canada, or Britain, or even Mexico as their “world headquarters.” Perhaps they would have to send 100 executives to the new office. Perhaps not. In any event, think about that before supporting an increase in the cost of doing business.
And yes, the US has several competitive advantages that other countries don’t have (NYSE and skilled labor, for instance), but that gets reduced to a dollar amount as well.
Then there is that international law issue. Yes Europe gets around the WTO anti-protectionist requirements by talking about VAT and genetically modified food. We could probably do the same, but why not look at Europe (which routinely has a higher unemployment rate than we do) before we decide to take the same path?
Well, Brian, you have the right to not spend any money you wish to keep. The point of the “stuff” was that the list includes running water, electricity, phone lines, multiple cars, etc.
I live in rural North Carolina. Speaking with people around here, this part of the state didn’t have electricity until the 1940s, and few people were on the grid up through the ’50s. I know people who drew water from the well each morning for the family to use that day (and extra water on certain days to wash laundry or bathe with).
That was the point.
While I understand Granny D’s sentiment, there seems to be a misunderstanding of the role of an economist. It is important to realize that when economists talk about labor as being a factor of production, this is to understand how economies work, not to marginalize the souls behind it.
There is now and should be a bright line between economics and public policy. Remember that economics as a stand alone field is relatively new. When my father went to college he studied political economy, not economics. It is the role of public policy to balance the needs of the individual with the needs of the society and the economy is one of those needs, along with life and liberty. Economists make predictive statements about how to best service the economic interests of a society. While a number go further to equate a strong economy to being good for many areas of public policy, this does not diminish the need to model and understand an economy and all of the factors of production that go into it. This level of abstraction is used to make predictive statements about the relative benefits to individuals in society resulting from differing policy options. These predictive statements should be used by policy makers to understand the effects that this will have on the constituents that they represent. If not, we are simply relying on the whim of one person�s short experience rather then, the collective wisdom built over time by thousands of people.
We do not chastise medical research scientists when they reduce humans to vectors or safety agencies for accidents per mile. It is important that the academic work by economists, and their hunchbacked evil blogger assistants, be studied in the abstract so that public policy makers can usefully apply the results to concrete of our individual lives.
For instance, off the top of your head, who creates minimum wage jobs? McDonald�s, Wal Mart, and small businesses. Who takes those jobs? High school students, retirees who only want part-time work to supplement their income from a broken Social Security system, and 14-year-old children of the small business�s founders.
Max, you state in your next post that you live in rural North Carolina. I would just like to say as a midwestern city dweller, those are not the majority of the workers I see at Wal-Mart, McDonalds, or other companies of that ilk. The people I’ve seen working at those places are generally in their prime working years, although I will admit that I’ve never asked them if they make minimum wage or above.
Well, living in rural North Carolina, I’m among the minority in my beliefs about the economy. North Carolinians are often conservative Democrats, and support balanced budgets and a citizen government ($15,000/year for state congressmen), but support government intervention to prop up textiles, manufacturing, and tobacco growing.
I was raised in California, and my first job there was a minimum wage position at a mall bakery. Nobody I worked with (aside from my manager) was more than five years older than me. I was the only one there who opposed a California proposition to raise the state minimum wage, and was upset when Clinton acted to raise the minimum wage. IIRC, minimum wage went from $4.25 (California was already above the national minimum) to $5.15 in six months or so. Everybody making more than $4.25, but less than $5.15 started making minimum wage again. Some people were laid off, and prices rose.
I went from that job to a restaurant, where I was a tipped bus boy. California doesn’t allow tipped employees to be paid less than the minimum wage, so I made out pretty well there ($5.15/hr + abt $5.00/hr in tips). At the restaurant, however, there were several single parents in their prime working years who hadn’t made any career plans, and had no career plans at the time. I’m not sure if raising their wage would be good public policy, since it would still cost jobs and raise prices for everybody.
I don’t know how things are in the midwest, although when I visit family in Colorado, I see high school students manning the fast food restaurants. It is true that Wal Mart usually hires older workers (older than high school, not necessarily retirees), and pays minimum wage (according to what I’ve heard from ex-employees). If Wal Mart could be forced to pay a higher minimum wage without affecting other price-sensitive industries ((and without costing Wal Mart employees their jobs), I would support it. Otherwise, I think it’s better to Clinton’s Lifetime Learning Tax Credit. Wal Mart’s customers sould make it clear that they support higher wages, even if they come with higher prices. However, I believe K-Mart used to pay higher wages, and we know how well that business decision went.
One reform I would support, by the way, would be to change the basic structure of Social Security. Right now you pay 6.2% of your paycheck up to $87,900 (and your employer matches that). Anybody getting over $87,900 pays $5450. I think the tax ought to be scaled so that low-wage employees pay 3%, high-earning employees pay 8%-10%, and the $87,900 ceiling were raised or eliminated. This is basically how income tax works, and would (1) raise more money for Social Security benefits (so my son’s Social Security number would actually mean he could one day draw benefits), and (2) make Social Security less burdensome on lower-income families.
Let freedom ring…except for those who want to take part in the economy. In that case, you are subservient to the majority’s wishes including stopping you from any economic decisions that you see in your best interest.
“Right now, we do not have a say in outsourcing, for example, not because a natural market force is working in the world, but because our interests are not being represented, and corporate interests are.”
Corporations are fictitious entities that make no decisions on their own – peope do. They are acting in their own best interests. What you are proposing is that there are some people who can act in their own best interests and those who cannot.
What a great slogan, Freedom for me but not for thee.
I for one will choose this “horror show” over living in a social-ist nightmare.
Granny, I don’t doubt you are a sincere person wanting the best for America but you argue for freedom and not-freedom at the same time.
Granny, thank you for such an accurate thoughtful post. Unfortunately, I’m in Ohio and unnable to vote for you. It is well known, even among economists that the GDP is an absolutely pathetic indicator of prosperity. A “jobless recovery” is an oxymoron.
Max, here in Ohio, I see far more “working age” adults working in fastfood and at wal-mart than retirees and highschool kids. And the current minimum wage just isn’t enough to survive on, as a parent. Yes it MIGHT make prices go up, but those who can’t afford fastfood made by people who are being paid enough to raise their children should buy less fast food.
I do agree that taxes influence hiring, and therefore I think that reducing the various labor taxes (payroll, income, etc.) and making up the difference in other ways (tax pollution, dividends) will make it cheaper businesses to hire more people (helping everyone) and make it more expensive to pollute (which hurts everyone).
And to counter your wal-mart wages point, I present Costco. Costco has a long track record of treating their employees with respect and paying them well for their effort. (IIRC, $10/hr is a fairly normal starting wage.) Yet they still manage to be competitive with wal-mart. K-mart’s failure can hardly be attributed to simply paying their employees more.
Alan:
“Corporations are fictitious entities that make no decisions on their own – peope do.”
Unfortunately these “fictitious entities” are given way to many legal rights, to things like free speech that should be reserved for real citizens. Even worse, corporations provide legal cover for their employees, to a large degree, making them not responsible for their own actions. We really need bring back corporate accountability on all levels. (The libertarian presendential candidate has talked about this.)
Tito writes:
/*
[on the “fiction” of the corporation]
Unfortunately these �fictitious entities� are given way to many legal rights, to things like free speech that should be reserved for real citizens.
*/
Since these corporations are nothing but the collective effort of real people, why should they have less speech rights than you do? Perhaps we should apply the same restrictions to that other “fictitious entity” the 503c non-profit (aka NGO) and restrict Greeenpeace, the Sierra Club, and the Red Cross in the same manner? If you were to deny Nike the rights that you yourself enjoy, what would prevent them from just giving their advertising director a multi-million dollar expense account and telling this person that their job was to say whatever they wanted using this money?
/*
Even worse, corporations provide legal cover for their employees, to a large degree, making them not responsible for their own actions. We really need bring back corporate accountability on all levels.
*/
The reason that limits to legal liability are necessary are complex and have to do with the history of the corporate charter, but for a very, very good explanation of why this is both necessary and good you should check out the reasoning that Tim Oren gave in response to a similar question.
Obviously the above poster pledges allegiance to the United Corporations of America.
Which is nice because no doubt he has been enriched by a corporation.
And as Thoreau pointed out: the rich man is always sold to that which makes him rich.
And in a real sense we ALL have been made rich by corporations.
In fact: No one has found a better way to organize and motivate and streamline the production of goods for the betterment of humanity then via corporations.
Read that sentence again please. Because it goes right to the heart of Granny D’s point, which is flying over most everyone’s learned head.
She is claiming that corporations have lost that fundamental sense of purpose. And that the proof of this is all around “if you can but perceive.”
The reason for that is simple: the consolidation of wealth naturally leads to a consolidation of power which ends up corrupting the humans centally empowered by the corporation.
That’s an inevitable chain of events…
And that chain will continue unabated until our culture embraces again–both in education centers and in media spaces–the idea of being a good corporate citizen.
I have yet to see a set of 10 commandments for corporations based on the social ethics desirable for good corporate citizenry.
We cannot, and should not expect corporations to behave morally if we do not define that moral behavior.
I propose that the first commandment should be a retooling of Asimov’s First Law of Robotics:
I) A corporation may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
And that the second should read:
II) Corporations exist to enrich people: both customers and employees.
III) Corporations should employ as many people as they can without jeopardizing their own existence.
etc.
You see… like Granny D, I believe corporations should serve people…not the other way around. That’s the sort of culture I want to live in… anything less than that, I don’t even pretend to pledge allegiance too.
Alan writes: “Corporations are fictitious entities that make no decisions on their own – peope do. They are acting in their own best interests. What you are proposing is that there are some people who can act in their own best interests and those who cannot.”
Alan, that is not what she is proposing, it is what she is condemning as the current undesirable status quo. Of course there are people making decisions in corporations. Of course they serve their own interests. Of course those people have far more power to affect our reality than most other people. Of course corporations are fictitious entities, but they are fictitious entities invented to shield these individuals from responsibility and liability for what they do. Why do you think this is a good thing?
Granny D: Don’t be chagrined by the wild wind-whip of clashing opinions on economics coming from many different diirections and blown by differring degrees of wind. As you know, economics is not a science, and there are few economists who have even a touch of mastery of the art. That is because, there are, and can be by the nature of economic activity, no fundamental principles. So they try to impose order on the chaos with myths and rituals–just a natural, primitive reaction of cave men. They hypothesize general principles like their forbears did gods, and claim to see cycles in economies, such as recessions, etc, where all there are are occasional consequences of disparet events. But they refuse to look at the real forces that are involved, and admit what they are since they are committed to the idea of economies and admitting that greed and a desire to exploit and act as parasites have generally moved the gods they are moved by.
All:
The fact that there is no science of economics does not preclude the artistically sensitive among us to see through the myths to devise programs that can be understood to be workable realities. For instance, instead of maintaining support for small businesses, which generally involves using public funds in one way or another to support the profitability of individual, family or partnership organizations designed to exploit the productive labor of ones neighbors in sufficiently sad shape to have3 no choice but to accept being parasitized, government could foster capitalist cooperatives to provide the economic activity of what are now small businesses. There is nothing any more advantageous in fostering small parasites that ther is in fostering the large parasites who exploit employees on a grander scale. And it is much easier to foster relatively smaller capitalist cooperatives in which the employees own their own mean of productuion such as facilities and who hire their own managers as well as all other forms of workers. On a simple level: Why should a skilled labor intensive activity like a basketball team “owned” by anyone other than the players. They are certainly capable of creating their own board of Directors who can hire the members and managers. Players could be paid from the team’s management according to their market value to the team, just as they are now, etc. Decisions on facility aquisition, ticket prices, etc., could all be performed within the “free” market.
Likewise, with the auto parts store down on the corner. All employees don’t have to own equzl shares, or have equal votes–it should depend on their current and bsnked value to the team over the years. I could go into extreme complexities of what would be needed to foster such. But the principle is the important: Each man is owning his own means of production and will gain from the successful produiction of their cooperative endeavor. To foster such capitalist cooperatives in which the workers employed own their own means of production and are compensated according to their contributions to the mutual profits would not require the government to deny to any parasite the right to exploit a neighbor. But, it is not in human nature to want to become an employee of those who want to take a portion of their production without contributing a sufficient compensation. Most “owners” are vastly over-compensated compared to theuir contributions to the success of their common endeavor.
So much fior my book of economics. The only form of capitalism or communism that is fair and just is cooperative capitalism That our government should foster.
Tito:
When are you going to the fast food restaurants? And, think a little about the economics of fast food restaurants that pay minimum wage because that’s the only way to make the numbers work. If the wage rises 50% in a short period of time, it will make prices go up, people will buy less fast food (even if they don’t stop completely), and more people will be unemployed. Why is that a good thing? We have some experience with this, and it has happened every other time minimum wage went up.
Now, there are still jobs that pay better than minimum wage and don’t require any special brains, skills, education or training. There are fewer today than there once were, but they exist. Some are dangerous, some are simply well-kept secrets.
Why are companies willing to pay more than minimum wage for no special training? Because the workers have a hand in setting their own salary, and some industries have learned how to ask for more than minimum wage (even without unions).
Several other well-paying jobs only require minimal training. If people don’t have the chops to ask for more pay than they are getting, I think it makes sense to help them get some training and confidence. That way, we avoid the dark side of minimum wage inreases (especially in a soft economy), and help staff job vacancies that exist. I think Clinton’s Lifetime Learning and HOPE Tax Credits are good ideas, especially since many community colleges now hold several clases online (simple economics: online classes allow more paying students to attend because they don’t need classrooms), or via local cable television stations, or in other ways that allow people to study around their schedule.
I’m not saying minimum wage workers are lazy, or stupid. I’m saying that the minimum wage doesn’t necessarily need to be a living wage. Especially when you recognize that the workers in the equation are people who know what kind of wage they must pull in to make ends meet, and can turn down jobs that don’t provide that. If they don’t qualify for better-paying jobs, why not help them qualify instead of artificially
Although it wasn’t the original idea of the post, there has been some confusion about corporations and limited liability. I blame high school teachers who insist on telling their classes outdated legal theories about why corporations exist, when they were first created, what the alternatives are, or how limited liability works.
I won’t spend much time explaining things here. Google the phrase “nexus of contracts” to see how modern-day law considers corporations. In addition, there is a new idea out there you may find interesting. Check out a paper about Islamic”>Islamic”>http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=585687″>Islamic traditions and corporate law as an idea of corporate history, limited liability, and what alternatives existed to corporations (if you’re not a student working on research, leave that field blank when you register).
And, regarding limited liability, some articles about veil-piercing may help. Otherwise, ask yourself if it would be fair for people to lose everything they own because of a lawsuit filed against a corporation whose stock they have in their 401(k) (especially since the 401(k) is probably a mutual fund, and the future-retiree had nothing to do with buying that particular company’s stock).
Interesting discussion. However it seems we have also forgotton that corporate charters were set up by the Founders of this country as “temporary” charters. The drafters of this nation had seen first-hand how the Hudson Bay Trading Company liked to strongarm the community; and so they created business charters as PROVISIONAL. (If the company somehow usurped the health and happiness of citizens, the “License”, which was reviewed periodically, could be REVOKED.) Not so today! American Corporations enjoy the protection known as “habeus corpus” – but where is the “body”- the one with the Finite Life!? The fact that a corporation can “outlive” a human several times over gives it an unfair advantage in the economic playing field. If corporations were held, once again, to a human standard – and threatened with revocation of their legal right to do business – it follows that “business as usual” would not be quite so likely to involve the destruction of ecosystems, or even governments, in the process. Standards for corporate accountability should be judged by the counterbalance of human needs, and human dignity. I agree with Granny D!
Perhaps our inability to come together is due to an inability to see the problem in the same light.
First, I must recognize that I jumped to the conclusion that GrannyD is a protectionist (and that she supports raising the minimum wage 50%), when she clearly said, “I think there is a happy medium between raw free marketeering and highwall protectionism,” and never wrote (here) what she proposes to do so that people can once again “own a house and raise five kids pretty decently” as “laborer[s] in a furniture warehouse in Laconia, NH” (or the equivalent).
So, I appologize for putting words in her mouth.
OTOH, while re-reading the posts, I found out that we simply aren’t looking at the problem in the same way.
In GrannyD’s posts, she has written:
GrannyD has decided that the economy is a system, and since healthy systems need boundaries, then the economy needs boundaries. In some circles, this is called “proof by analogy.” Basically, take a look at something, think of what it reminds you of, and then make statements based on the object you compared it to, but not the original object.
GrannyD recognizes the danger in making decisions based on abstractions, because she also wrote:
The problem with abstractions is that something always gets lost. Why? Because abstractions are meant to simplify things, and they do that by ignoring details.
Markets, unlike gas-powered engines or fields of crops, are made up of haggling people. Yes, workers who refuse to take a job for less than $XX/hr will always lose when foreign countries have workers willing to take the job for a tenth of that. I assume GrannyD wishes to somehow prop up our workers’s ability to do the job for $XX/hr by limiting the ability foreign workers have to do the job for less.
Aside from international treaties that limit our ability to do that, there are several reasons to avoid this course of action (those reasons, BTW, are the justification for the treaties). I have been trying to put forth some of those reasons, but they don’t work in the market as machinery abstraction.
So, stated as an abstraction, trying to limit our country’s exposure to cheap foreign labor is a minefield that must be navigated carefully.
However, if we step back from the analogy that markets are finely-tuned machinery, we realize that our workers are not interchangeable parts or dollar figures — they are people with friends, skills, and needs. Unemployed workers first look for jobs, but when the market “lets them down,” they are capable of creating jobs by leveraging those friends and skills. And they only create jobs that they are skilled enough to fill, and that pay enough for their needs.
Sound implausible? If you think of the market as a gas motor, yes. If you think of the market as millions of individuals haggling over the details, no. How else can you explain the low-skill jobs out there that pay better than minimum wage?
For the record, I would support reforms to make it easier for our workers to haggle better, such as reforms that give our workers more information about what various jobs are paying, or reforms that teach our workers skills needed for higher-paying jobs.
OTOH, the reason the Leisure Society never comes is because workers keep finding new things to do with their time, in order to pay the bills. Workers can’t find a way to pay their bills by sitting around and letting the computers do the work, so they think of new jobs they have the skills to do and that employers are willing to pay a living wage for.
Now, on to corporations. It is interesting that some professionals choose partnerships, or partnership-like organizations, when entering the market. Accountants and attornies were once required by law to form unlimited liability partnerships. However, in many places those laws no longer exists, and accountants and law firms still group together as partnerships, LLCs or limited-liability partnerships. So do computer programmers, marketing consultants, real estate agents, stock brokers, doctors and several professionals. Why?
And why do manufacturers, real estate developers, hospitals, and other capital-intensive ventures form corporations?
Follow my earlier link to find out.
Is this proof that corporations should be completely unaccountable for their actions? No. Is it proof that investors in those corporations (especially working investors who only own stock because the manager of a mutual fund in their 401(k) bought into a particular company) need to face unlimited joint and several liability? Not really, but I hope another link I already posted about veil piercing might do that.
If there’s one economic change that could be made to help the people (I know there are more, but bear with me) it would be to change the taxation structure such that stock dividends were way more advantageous, tax-wise, than the capital gains made through stock speculation. This would help slow down the enormous stock price pressure which causes companies to outsource. Favoring dividends would mean that a profitable company could make the same profit year after year and be considered a good investment, because you’d be getting a dividend every year. The current situation says a company is only a good investment if you can get in at the low end, and sell out at the high end, and the quicker that happens the better – hence the analysts only consider a company a good investment if the stock price is right, it doesn’t matter to them whether the products are shoddy nor if they actually sell. It’s a get-rich-quick scheme, legalized to favor money managers.
I’ve read both Granny’s post and all of yours thoughtfully. I think a new county needs to be heard from here, as the old saying goes.
1. The market is not a god. There is a common tendency to presume, in an abstract way, that it is. I cannot tell you how many times I’ve heard that if “left to itself the market will take care of everything.” Regardless of the received wisdom of the last decades however, freemarkets are not the only legitimate paths to economic success, nor do they always lead to economic success. (Feel those blood pressures rising as I say that — think about why — exactly how much brain-washing has gone on??? None on this side, I started out right where you all are, and kept studying historical situations and modeling possibilities until I ended up where I am now on this issue.)
Now, before I continue let me point out that also contrary to the received wisdom, political systems and economic systems are not the same thing. Capitalism is not the political system of the United States, Representative Democracy is. Capitalism (though not truly market capitalism in the traditional sense) is its economic system. The two are both separable and different. (Witness many parts of Western Europe for my second point — Witness many parts of South America for my first one — particularly the Free Trade Zones.)
An economic system is a tool. A tool for a society. The economy is a system wherein, as one of my esteemed co-bloggers — Max – points out, there are many haggling actors. The difference between Max and I in our view of this is, I think (correct me if I’m wrong Max) that Max believes that the very act of having the haggling actors working together makes Market Capitalism “right” – regardless of what the end results on those actors are of the system. I, on the other hand, believe that Market Capitalism OR ANY OTHER ECONOMIC SYSTEM, is only worthwhile if the result it offers is a good one for all of the actors — not the best one for some and the worst one for others. I join with his Gracious Holiness, Pope John Paul II in saying (in his Encyclical on Work, (AKA Laborem Excerens — I think, though I may misremember the exact Latin name of the Encyclic) ) the economy is intended for the people, not the people for the economy. That is, I believe, an absolute. If the economy is not working for most people then it is time for a change.
Unfortunately, more and more, the economy is not working for the people. I am from the Northeast, an urban setting — and I agree with those from Ohio and the Midwest. Most workers I see in dead end jobs now are adults in prime earning years. Many of them have children whom they can inadequately care for because of their finances. Now I have a choice in how I look at that. I can look at it and say “Well, I have several college degrees and make plenty of money, our household income is in 6 figures, we have real estate and stock investments, and good retirement funds and we are only in our 30’s” and having said that, I can be content and ignore my fellow human beings. Alternatively, I can look at the situation and say “This is wrong. It should not be happening. Opportunity is the nature of America, and those who stop opportunity, under whatever shibbeloth must be stopped themselves. I am willing to give up some of what I have, and expect all other patriots to do the same, to guarantee that all Americans can do well.”
I choose the second option. I do not worship the market, and I will fight to do what is ethically and morally right to preserve the historic nature of this great nation, the land of opportunities and dreams — the light of the world.
Regards,
Reynolds C. Jones
Well, Reynolds, I would probably couch my opinion in more qualifying terms (“provided that … the actors will come to a fair agreement, and workers will be paid a fair wage”), but I think you got my point pretty well.
If the system is lopsided, and workers really can’t get a fair shake out of negotiations, then I would agree to reforms that make that possible. I would err on the side of the market, though, so I wouldn’t support reforms that set limits on what is considered fair.
In other words, I would rather see workers put on equal footing with employers than higher minimum wage laws. The reason is simple: it’s hard to determine something that is fair in all circumstances (and the areas where it’s easy — such as safe working environments — have already been dealt with). What is fair for a part-time high school student isn’t fair to a single parent. If we set the minimum wage to be fair to one, it won’t be fair to the other. On the other hand, if we make it possible for each to negotiate a fair wage that will meet their needs, then we have something I would support.
Not that high school students wouldn’t mind being paid better, but fewer high school students will be employed if the wage is set too high.
All:
Someone (unidentified) critiqued Tito’s claim that:
/*
[on the �fiction� of the corporation]
Unfortunately these �fictitious entities� are given way to many legal rights, to things like free speech that should be reserved for real citizens.
*/
Obviously, I could agree more if Tito had distinguished between the “privileges” given by the people’s representatives to those fictional entities, versus the rights of people merely recognized and protected by our Constitution. I know that sounds like quibbling–but it really goes to the heart of how our country is not a simple democracy where the majority rules no matter how they wish to violate thre rights of citizens. We a a Constitutional Republic founded on a recognition of certain inalienable rights of people.
However, there is a consewquence of the recognition that people have the right through their representatives to give privileges to fictional entities when that is for the “General Welfare,” and it violates none of the other rights of citizens. Among the consequences is our need to distinguish clearly just what we have created and to which we have given privileges.
In answer to Tito, someone failed to recognize the requisite distinctions when he, she or it said:
“Since these corporations are nothing but the collective effort of real people, why should they have less speech rights than you do?”
1st: They are not “nothing but the collective effort of real people,” like a political club would be in which people voluntarily join their voices and riches together to expreess the people’s generalized political opinions.
Corporations are give various privileges, such as protection of their owners from bankruptcy liability, in exchange for existing withoin the constrains of a charter that limits them to their purposes for which they were created. This gives them a “corpos” or fictional, legally responsible “body” which is held responsible for the corporation’s behavior much as a citizen is responsible for its own behavior. But the corporate body is a slave, like Dred Scott was falsely supposed to be, that is subject to law without having a voice in the creation of the laws that enslave it.
While corporations, like partnerships of real people, do find the need to hire people (at least until they find Hals who can do the whole range of essential jobs, including management, those people do have their own rights and can exercise their personal rights, including equally give contributions to political parties and candidates like all other citizens. They (the owners and employees of corporations) have no less rights than all other citizens.. But the corporation, its fictional self, does not have any of those rights and should not have any privileges aping those rights because to do so is to limit the rights of citizens not merely by the rights of other citizens, but also by the privileges of the fictional personages of corporations.
Corporations are supposed to do nothing and spend nothing other than on the purposes of the corporations. And just as corporations are owned by people of all political persuasions, for corporations to take stands on political issues is to in theory have the right to work against the interests of their owners. That would be like a slave going against its master’s will.
Besides: There is no basis in the constitution to give Congress the power, or states the power, to grant rights to the people’s slaves (corporations) to get involved in people’s business such as “politics.” Politics is the activity of the boby politic, the body of people, not of corporations. There never was any basis for granting corporations the privileges or recognizing them as having rights to get involved in politics. Thus, all corporations should be enjoined from all expenditures on political expressions or activities and on any lobbying to affect laws. If Congress needs to get information about economic matters regarding corporations, Congress is perfectly capable of supoenaing corporate officers to speak for the corporations. In addition, all employees, from management to the unskilled wAREHOUS janitors, are perfectly free and capable of personally spending their own money and making their own case about any political issue to all involved. But corporations shoul have no privilege to interfere in our family feuds or act like Hall, wanting to take over.
The “astute” writer who failed to recognize the importance of the distinction discussed above also failed to recognize the implication of that distinction in the following comment:
“Perhaps we should apply the same restrictions to that other �fictitious entity� the 503c non-profit (aka NGO) and restrict Greeenpeace, the Sierra Club, and the Red Cross in the same manner?”
Those who contribute to such fictitious entities set up to bring their voices and monies together for the purpose of expressing their opinions are more akin to the priviately owned or partnership businesses. Those owners can spend whatever of their money they want to within the campaign contribution laws to express their opinions. Likewise all contributions to such groups designed to express the voices of people alone must be counted as contributions to political campaigns and/or parties and must count against the full amount a citizen may fairly give.
All money contributions are not speech activities. They serve to amplify free speech, and thus, to protect the free speech of other, they must be limited to keep them from drowning out the voices of those who do not have so much money. Its like if two parties were holding rallies on two sidewalk corners a block apart, but one had lots of rich people in it who bought such an array of high wattage speakers that they boomed their voices for blocks around, making it impossible for their opponents to hear themselves think let alone say anything. That would not only be unfair, it would violate the right to equal free expression of fellow citizens who just happened not to have money enough to do the same to you. And even if they did just use their money to drown each other out, that would violate the free speech of each. Surely that is simple enough to help you understand. But how each citizen spends his fair amount of money to support the expression of his political views should be his own matter.
Granted, there are problems with PAFCs and 503cs. But those have to be corrected within the proper theoretical framework.
Just a simple correction. Edromar stated:
First, corporate political activity is incredibly limited. Corporations figure out ways around those limits (such as by being essential to the economic health of various parts of the country). But, when you read “Microsoft donated $XX million to Republicans” the fine print says that Microsoft-related executives, PACs, etc. donated the money.
Second, Lessig is one of the attorneys who helped Moveon.org determine the scope of its free speech rights. Moveon.org is a 501(c)(4) non-profit organization, and I doubt that you’ll find any clause in the Constitution that expressly permits it to have First Amendment free speech rights.
Third, corporate law is mainly state law. Corporate charters are granted by the state based on state law. Delaware corporate law is more corporation-friendly (and more developed) than other states.
Fourth, the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution gives Congress the ability to regulate corporate activiies (including commercial speech).
Fifth, the Congress, using its Constitutional authority, set up the FEC. You may have heard of it.
Max Liberty who doesn’t realize that liberty is oppressive licence when not balanced against others’ liberties did as one might expect from a person who claimed that Bush did not implement the Kyota Treaty because of a soft, recessional economy. He tried to mislead us and in the process, got it wrong.
Bush rejected the Kyota Treaty because of deep philosophical differences: his corporate sponsors paid him to. Now he claims:
“First, corporate political activity is incredibly limited.”
Oh really. You mean, they can’t hire lobbyists to gain access to politicians by promises of various kinds of gifts and support? OK, you would include that in saying that “Corporations figure out ways around those limits (such as by being essential to the economic health of various parts of the country).” Come on. While some such skirting the law does take place, mostly they long ago bought lawmakers off who do not have the independence of them to pass laws to hem them in.
Further, Max License tries to mislead us by pointing out that: “…when you read �Microsoft donated $XX million to Republicans� the fine print says that Microsoft-related executives, PACs, etc. donated the money.” Sure, that sometimes happens. And sometimes corporations do recognize the few limits Congress was forced by ladies such a Granny D. There are even legitimate political activities by executives of corporations such as those at Mocrosoft (when they give to Kerry and Democrats–sorry, just joking!) But there is a long history of excessive abuses by the corporations using money that could go to stock-holders. Why do you think that after nearly a hundred yeas since Theodore Roosevelt passed a bill intended to stop all corporate political expenditures, they are still so great. No. It is not always strictly illegal contributions such as the sources of Nixon’s Watergate slush fund. Many times executives simply get themselves paid a little extra to enable them to contribute a little more to politicians. But however they do it, whether it is illegal or not, it is just wrong!
“Second,” ML says:L “essig is one of the attorneys who helped Moveon.org determine the scope of its free speech rights. Moveon.org is a 501(c)(4) non-profit organization,” and I presume that that much is true. However, when he presumes that “I doubt that you�ll find any clause in the Constitution that expressly permits it to have First Amendment free speech rights,” he ignores that it is merely an accumulator of personal contributions of individual citizens who have a first Amendment right to contribute parts of their fair share political contributions to mutual pools to expreess their political opinions. If the law is defective in not assuring that citizens do not abuse their obligations to accept responsible limits on their overall contributions, that is a fault of the law that needs to be fixed. The final form of the McCain-Feingold and House bill compromise that Granny D and the rest of us had to settle for (an to which I voiced my disappointment at the time), is greatly formed by the opposition that did not exactly ask us all in to write the bill instead of the politicians. I was opposed because I believed that a much simpler bill refusing to corporations the right to spend one red cent on political expression, had, soft or fluffy, was needed to assert the fact that corporations have no right to get involved in our political activities whether in contributions or in Lobbying or in “education” regarding political or economic matters. I did not agree with doubling the individual contribution levels as the price we would have to pay. Rather I favored public finance including publicly financed debates that only candidates who accepted the funding and limitations could participate in. Also, as one among the public who ones the electromagnetic spectrum, I favored a limitation on how much of that could be used for political ads during the election season, and keeping that only for those who agreed to receive and be bound by the rules of publicly funded campains. Thankfully, Granny D is a more practical politician than a theoretician like me could ever be. She knew she had the best compromise she could get at that time. I personally thought that the SWupreme Court which stole the election for Bush would likewise violate the Constitution by claiming that thre most crucial and beneficial part of the reform were unconstitutional. I gues they feared that after their excesses in stealing the election for Bush, the people would not stand for their continued partisan service to the corporations who own their asses.
Max also claims that “Third, corporate law is mainly state law. Corporate charters are granted by the state based on state law. Delaware corporate law is more corporation-friendly (and more developed) than other states.” While that is true it is also irrelevant, as Max knows. Federal law trumps state law. Thus if the US Congress made it illegal for for any state chartered corporation to lobby Congress, states or make any political contributions or expenditures designed to “educate” the public about any political or economic matter, the fact that that might violate any state law is irrelevant–as long as it is in accord with the U. S. Constitution. And the rights of citizens that must be respected by our courts are not limited to those that are specifically listed in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. There are a multitude protected, such as citizens’ political expressions being drowned out by corporate expenditures, that are expressed within although not expressly listed within those documents. In fact any right needed for the general good or welfare is protected even by the Preamble’s mention of the purposes of Government if my forbear, John Marshall, is to be believed. For in his answer to the Jeffersonian mantra of strict construction, Marshall pointed out that the Constitution would not have made the general welfare a purpose of government5 without giving within, even if it is not always clear just where, the power to provide for achieving that end. In this case, a number of amendments and clauses and items in lists (such as the power of Congress to provide for the general welfare at the beginning of the list of powrs of Congress in Artical I, Sec. 8). The right to freedom of speech has the corollary of having a right not to be precluded from being heard. The 9th and 10th both harbor relevant rights in their generalizations.
Finally: “Fourth, the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution gives Congress the ability to regulate corporate activiies (including commercial speech).”
That is true to a much greater extent than the states’ rights strict constructionists are willing to admit (well, at least in conjunction with that little clause that gives them the right to make all laws “pursuant” to protecting rights even if those are not directly called for in the Constitution– at least as interpreted by the courts from the earliest relevant rulings). However, even those regulations have always be recognized to be bound by the limitations of “reasonable,” and to often violate such limitations. Unfortunately, the myopic courts could and should have seized on the “general welfare” clause in I.8 but had been disuaded by an early bit of sophistic argument by Tom Jefferson.
When relying on the power to regulate commerce, the legislators have always been constrained by matters relating to economics or commerce. That should not be necessary. Thus, the courts based much of the right to limit corporate political expressions on the basis of the unfettered privilege leading to corporate fraud or the appearance of fraud. No such complicated arguments would have been needed if the courts simply recognized that it is bad for the general welfare for the corporations being regulated by our government to be able to contribute to the choice of the politicians who will be appointing and directing their regulators. Lobbying is likewise so obviously against the people’s welfare of having unprejudiced regulation of corporations that criminalizing that is a no-brainer. Unfortunately, we have had legislators with no brains. So I support getting Granny D in there to bring a little common sense to government.
Finally, Max says sarcastically: “Fifth, the Congress, using its Constitutional authority, set up the FEC. You may have heard of it.”
But Congress does not write laws with adequate specificity to direct the FEC adequately. For instance. The FEC failed to tell Sinclair that they could not make the political contribution of the anti-Kerry Vietnam veterans lies. Nor have they been given the power to make the FCC force stations to stop airing patent lies as in the Swiftboat Veterans lies that Kerry said that all Vietnam veterans had engaged in a litany of crimes. A speech professor would flunk a student who, when reading Kerry’s committee testimony, tried to make that claim because it is a total lie: Kerry said that many veterans had told him that they and people they knew had said that they were guilty of a variety of such crimes.
And while Duh?bya might be excused from not understanding the difference due to the damaged condition of his coke stoned brain, I dioubt that all those Vietnam veterans have that excuse in spite of the fact that many of our soldiers over there were known to cope with the crap by getting stoned.
So, the FEC, like the FCC do not have unlimited powers, nor should they. They should have been given specific instructions in the law. But Congress has made things so complicated by trying to provide so many worm-holes in the law that they had to end up making the regulatory aws long and general rather than short and specific, shirking their real responsibilities in many cases to political appointees who are supposedly “independent.”
Our legislators have been owned so long by corporations, they long since ceased making decent laws designed for the welfare of citizens and caved in to fostering corporations. Well, at least that is what I think. I did say earlier that I am long winded?
koreyel on Oct 19 04 at 11:35 AM suggest that corporations be bound with a set of commandments. I agree that there should be laws for the direction of all corporations. However, I suspect they must be much more specific and a little different that those proposed by superman’s father:
“I) A corporation may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.”
How about: “may not exploit or profit from the labor of any employee above what is given to that employee as a reward for his or her contribution to the success of the enterprise.” Oh, the owners might object? Duh. Do you think they might be happier if they were the owners, each owning a portion according to their individual contributions to their mutual endavor?
“And that the second should read:
II) Corporations exist to enrich people: both customers and employees.”
How about, they exist to create products to sell at market prices as expressions of the labor of workers and managers who are paid according to the market value of their labor and who recive fair shares of all profits made according to both the value of their contributions to their mutual organization and the equivalent value of their share in the corporations which are capitalist cooperatives in which only the employees own the corporations as their own means of production.
It is just not true that the labor of any man exists to enrich anyone other than himself and his mutual endeavors. Nor does it have to be.
Third Korel says” “III) Corporations should employ as many people as they can without jeopardizing their own existence.” No. Corporations should employ just the employees/owners who enable those mutually involved in production to create the most stable and profitable bisiness possible. Of course, if the workers owned their own corporations, that would serve as a fly-wheel to prevent radical and unnecessary lay-offs. Certainly such corporations should be well governed by laws limiting their boards and manager employees and worker employees from colluding to treat others unfairly.
Korel says: “You see� like Granny D, I believe corporations should serve people�not the other way around. That�s the sort of culture I want to live in� anything less than that, I don�t even pretend to pledge allegiance to.”
But corporations should not have allegiance it should have employees who own it and to whom corporations owe allegiance to maximize profits and fairly share those among all owner/employees according to their contributions to and ownership shares of the corporations.
We don’t have to confuse everything such as the goals of labor in order to make corporations fair and not exploitative parasites.
Apparently I touched a nerve, so I appologize to edromar for being so callous. On the other hand, I wish I could figure out if edromar thinks I am using a pseudonym, or if he really feels clever playing games with my name. For the record, I only use my last name because I figured nobody would take “Max” as a real name. Lybbert, by the way, isn’t all that uncommon either. We’re almost all decendants of Christian Frederik Bernhard Lybbert, although most Lybberts live near the US-Canadian border or Utah.
Edromar is apparently unaware of the “Nexus of Contracts” theory of corporations. If he is aware of it, I can’t see the difference between his characterization of non-profit organizations and corporations. Apparently making money by selling a product, good, or service should disqualify a group of individuals from exercising their First Amendment rights. But, groups that do nothing but collect donations from their members should have those rights. Why?
Apparently, some of my statements weren’t completely understood. I was referring to edromar’s comment that, “There is no basis in the [C]onstitution to give Congress the power, or states the power, to grant rights to [corporations] to get involved in people�s business such as ‘politics,'” as I stated in my earlier post. Considering this, I can’t understand the following two responses:
[edromar’s reply:] he ignores that it is merely an accumulator of personal contributions of individual citizens
[edromar’s reply:] While that is true it is also irrelevant
I can’t fathom the first reply, because (again), edromar ignores the people who come together to form a corporation. His only reply is that corporations are formed to make money. Why should this reduce their free speech rights? Should homeless people have more free speech rights, since they clearly have less money? More to the point, why should partnerships have free speech rights, but corporations not have any? (“Those who contribute to [non-profits] set up to bring their voices and monies together for the purpose of expressing their opinions are more akin to the priviately owned or partnership businesses.”).
My second reply is relevant because edromar was complaining about the Constitutional silence on corporate free speech. That silence isn’t amazing when you consider the role state law plays in the equation. Yes, federal laws (such as the Lanham Act and any SEC-related law) trump state laws. But, when federal law is silent, the Consitution clearly permits state law to fill the void.
It may suprise some people when I say that I don’t like lobbying either. California was ahead on the matter when it banned any truly influential lobbying (gifts to assemblymen must be worth no more than something like $25, for instance). All campaign finance reform and lobbying reform laws will be broken as long as they are written by the same people who benefit from broken campaign finance and lobbying laws. Figure out a Constitutional way to change the law without Congress’s involvement, and you’ll become my personal hero.
For the record, I don’t think any evidence exists that implies Kerry would be less receptive to lobbyists than Bush has been.
And to clarify, edromar notes (accurately):
And responds by noting where the FEC has been asleep at the wheel. It is interesting that his examples include Sinclair’s decision to air an anti-Kerry documentary, but he doesn’t say why it should be illegal to air. I will assume that he’s concerned Kerry won’t get equal time. Although documentaries weren’t considered when the law was written, I will agree with edromar on principle, if he agrees that airing of Fahrenheit 9/11 or footage from the various Kerry-supporting concerts should also be considered political ads, and equal time ought to be offered to Bush in those those cases.
Edromar also brings up the Swift Boat Veterans ads, but overlooks Moveon.org’s various ads. In any event, the FEC was already taken to task for not doing its job there. The system is broken, but I think it’s broken at a different level than what edromar identifies.
Hi Max,
I understand the idea of Libertarianism, and the scant but real difference between Libertarianism and Objectivism (which are you by the way? I suspect some form of Libertarian, as you don’t have the knee jerk reactions of most Objectivists I’ve met). So, I have a pretty good understanding of the “ideal,” I simply don’t believe that it works in real life.
There are employers who pay living wages to all employees out of a sense of moral commitment to the greater community — but they are few and far between. Exploitation of workers is much more common. That is the simple reality. Even if you look only in America exploitation is more common and getting worse – if you look in places like those that I mentioned (the ‘free trade’ zones in South America for example) it is more severe than you probably imagine — unless you know the languages or have a good interpreter and have taken the time to go there. (I have personally – though in a more limited manner than I should).
So I deny that it is even possible in a universal fashion to have a world where the actors come to fair agreements. The existence of severe power differentials between the actors, together with a willingness on the part of the more powerful actors to use that differential to their advantage preclude universally fair agreements. That of course is the idea behind unions — to lessen the differential by aggregation – and thus create at least a semi-level playing field.
You say that you would like to see workers put on equal footing with employers — how do you propose to do that in a workable manner? I would be interested in seeing the plan. Feel free to email me at [email protected] if it is too much to post here.
Oh, and safety standards have been rolled back considerably in the last 4 years. The issue of workplace safety is much less “dealt with” than it used to be.
Regards,
Reynolds C. Jones
First, I don’t affiliate myself with the Libertarian party. I find the anti-corporate banter ridiculous. My understanding of their form of libertarianism is that (1) insurance companies can take care of police and military actions, and (2) no company should have limited liability. I can’t figure out how insurance companies would form in such an environment. Who would put up seed capital without some kind of limited liability? I may be “small l” libertarian, but I’m not so sure of that, either.
Second, I haven’t spent much time reading Ayn Rand, but I disagree with her on several issues. Abortion is one that I think won’t suprise anyone here. I don’t call myself “pro-life” since (1) proof that embryos aren’t “living” at various stages would (in theory) make abortion acceptable at those stage, and (2) pro-lifers generally don’t permit any exceptions to their policy. I accept abortion in cases where the mother’s life (or long-term health) is at risk, in cases of rape, or in cases where the child has virtually no chance of living after birth.
I’m registered Republican, and consider myself socially- and fiscally-conservative, and a free-market supporter. You can choose any labels you wish for my ideas and positions. In particular, I believe in Coase’s theorom (“When the parties can bargain successfully, the initial allocation of legal rights does not matter.“). I find the material at the end of that article most interesting (especially Update 2 that refers to ranchers who were known to deal with things informally because going to court was so expensive and time-consuming).
/* There are employers who pay living wages to all employees out of a sense of moral commitment to the greater community � but they are few and far between.
*/
I think this is a reference to, say, Henry Ford who (according to urban legends) paid his employees enough for them to be his customers. That may be true, but far more Model Ts were sold to non-employees than to Ford employees. I believe that Say’s Law explains this better than humanitarian management (or this article: “A visitor to the United States from the Soviet Union in the 80’s was shown an American supermarket — in stark contrast to the empty shelves in Soviet stores — and he remarked that it was well stocked but that people could not afford to buy the goods. Almost anyone can see the fallacy in his viewpoint: a store that couldn’t sell its goods would quickly go bankrupt.”)
And, by the way, I spent some time in Ceara Brazil. Ceara is part of the poorest region of the country (Northeast). I’ve seen exploitation first-hand.
Brazil pays a lot of lip service to ending exploitation. It’s most recent constitution (1988) includes over 300 rights, including the right to non-demeaning jobs that pay a living wage. The government can write anything it wants to in such a long wish list. I don’t think this wish can be realized without a working free market. In fact, I was once talking with a real estate developer there who said a construction worker’s buying power (and cost, relative to various raw materials used in construction) had doubled in the previous ten years because of free market economics.
/* You say that you would like to see workers put on equal footing with employers � how do you propose to do that in a workable manner?
*/
I don’t have any specific suggestions, aside from making education readily-available and spreading information the government already collects about wages for particular jobs. I don’t oppose unions, per se, although my contact with today’s unions has been uninspiring. Two of my brothers have worked union jobs, and both were upset about the union’s ability to complain about union members disciplined for theft, while not coming up with any real benefits to all the other members who paid dues.
I think workers could benefit from several changes to the business environment, such as cutting down on various legal costs so that less money goes to lawyers (and more can go to workers) and seeing if “supply” of medical services and insurance can somehow be increased (build more hospitals, permit employers to pool together in buying insurance policies, come up with medical malpractice insurance reform similar to the kind of reform unemployment insurance or worker’s comp has gone through, etc.).
Thinking things over, I believe that reforms that make starting small businesses easier would also help in the haggling side of things. First, workers seem to have more clout in small businesses. Second, haggling always works better for people who have alternatives, and more small businesses create more alternatives (and being able to start a business is an alternative by itself).
On the “making the business environment better for workers,” I would support changing Social Tax to a progressive structure, to reduce the burden on low-wage workers.
I just found that Mr. Lybbert responded to my critical responses to one or two of my earlier discussions. To clarify the true differences between our positions I here do not let his spin go un- unspun,
Apparently I touched a nerve, so I appologize to Max for being so observant that his name seems to reflect his politics. On the other hand, I wish I could figure out if Max thinks I am using really feeling clever playing games with his name. For the record, I only use his two names because I figured nobody would take �Max Lybbert� as a real name. I did not know that Lybbert, by the way, isn�t all that uncommon either. They may almost all be decendants of Christian Frederik Bernhard Lybbert, although most Lybberts live near the US-Canadian border or Utah.
Max can�t see the difference between my characterization of non-profit organizations and corporations. So he pretends that �Apparently making money by selling a product, good, or service should disqualify a group of individuals from exercising their First Amendment rights.� I certainly never suggested that any individuals should be disqualified from exercising any right. Rights belong to individuals, not �groups� and I am quite happy to allow every single individual who works for a corporation to exercise every single right of every other individual. Where we differ is Max�s wish to give a fictitious individual, a corporation, an equal right with real individuals, the right to get involved in using corporate monies to try to influence our political and governing processes. Those monies, until they are distributed to the owners of various shares do not belong to any individual other than the fictitious individual, the corporation. Theoretically, I see no reason why individuals who work for corporations should not be able to voluntarily pool their personal monetary contributions into a 527 to express their mutual political opinions. There is a whole other principle involved when they want to use the funds of the fictional, non-citizen individual that people have created for profit making purposes to support political purposes.
Yes, some individuals do choose to create a form of corporation, not to make money or have any to be used for profit making, but to make mass media buys by bringing together many people�s contributions. Now, if their contributors were allowed to contribute funds to such groups beyond those allowed to all citizens to contribute to political activities, I would be the first to say that would be unfair. If they could take funds from individuals who did not want to contribute to their expressions� of their members� mutual voices, I would agree that that too would be unfair. But that is not the case. When I went to make a contribution to Move-on, they had a form by which I had to agree that my contribution would not lead me to be contributing more to the campaign than the $4000. Total I and my wife are allowed to contribute to all aspects of the current presidential campaign. So what is unfair to any other voters if I choose to contribute some of my $2000. limit through Move-on and less to Kerry and to the DNC? To say that �Groups that do nothing but collect donations from their members should have those rights,� is technically wrong. The people who contribute have the right to spend their campaign contributions on such groups. The groups are given the privilege of acting as the agent of the contributors as long as they strictly obey laws designed to the purposes for which they were created. They are given the form of corporations by law because they can be kept under proper legal restraints. Their directors have to use their funds for the purposes for which they are given.
Max asks �Why?� it is OK for some corporations set up for such purposes to pursue such purposes while those set up to make money for their owners have no right to spend the corporation�s monies on political purposes. It seems pretty obvious that not only would such expenditures not necessarily reflect the will of their owners, but would be using funds that are not yet owned by the owners of the corporations. If these were owners of a partnership and they all agreed to use monies owned by their partnership, those would really be their monies already– and as long as those were contributed within the fair limits given each individual, that would be fine. But here the idea is to use funds owned not by partners or shareholders to pursue purposes not voluntarily chosen by either on political purposes which are the rights only of citizens.
Unfortunately all of Max statements were completely understood relating to my claim that �There is no basis in the Constitution to give Congress the power, or states the power, to grant rights to corporations to get involved in people�s business such as �politics,�� as I stated in my earlier post. Considering this, I can�t understand the following two responses from Max or his inability to grasp my answers:
* [Max:] �I doubt that you�ll find any clause in the Constitution that expressly permits [Moveon.org] to have First Amendment free speech rights,�
Max pretends that the thrust of my reply was that: �[Max] ignores that it is merely an accumulator of personal contributions of individual citizens.� Rather the crux of my answer was that various articles in the Bill of Rights, such as the 1st, 9th and 10th as well as the list in I.8 give people a lot of rights that are the Constitutional basis for specific rights that are not �expressly� (specifically) stated. Freedom of Speech alone gives us the right to contribute our fair share of political support to any political matter in whatever form we choose unless some clear reason can be shown to limit that. If such organizations as Move-on and SwiftBoat Veterans for Truth (actually for Lies) were not held to all the standards of truth that any citizen should be held to, good reason could be given to prevent people from contributing to them, and any penalties for libel should be passed on proportionately to those who contributed to the commercials. That the SwiftBloat Veterans (now a bunch of fat old lying men) can get away with such overt lies and not be stopped is an outrage. All involved in those commercials whether as writers, actors or even as contributors should be picked clean. There is no place in politics for lies despite all those tild by candidates such as Bush and Cheney. At least the people can hold them responsible for their lies if the people have half the sense of a nit-wit.
Further, Max claims that he �…can�t fathom my first reply, because (again), edromar ignores the people who come together to form a corporation.�
Nonsense. People don�t �form� a corporation as they do a partnership. The state by law forms a corporation by chartering it, giving it a form and limits. The corporation is put by the state under the care of a board of trustees who set up its structure and appoint its officers who hire its employees and offer its stock for sale. I don�t ignore them, it is just that they have their rights granted by the Constitution. The corporation has its obligations and privileges set up by state law. It has its own money invested as shares in its body and its profits. It�s body can not be dismembered as long as it exists. What profits it can distribute are limited by state and federal law. There is nothing to give this new fictional entity any right or reason to interfere in people�s political activities.
Max says that my �only reply is that corporations are formed to make money,� AND ASKS �Why should this reduce their free speech rights?�
That does not �reduce� any free speech rights. Fictional persons were never given any free speech rights �by nature and/or nature�s god� according to our Declaration, nor were any such rights of non-persons and non-citizens ever protected by our Constitution. For example, the one place where persons and citizens to which the Constitution applies, the 14th Amendment, recognized only the citizenship rights of:
�Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States.�
But corporations are neither born nor naturalized�nor are they really persons. Duh?
The 14th makes clear that only such persons �born and naturalized� in the US are there said to be �citizens of the United States.� It is only of such real persons who are citizens of the US that the 14th Amendment goes on to say:
�No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of [such] citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.�
On the basis of my rejection of Constitutional rights of corporations, Max pretends that I claimed that they had no rights because they were formed to make money. They were, but they have no rights because they are not real persons and only real persons are citizens who have rights. Still, Max tries to confuse readers by pretending that the reasons corporations don�t have rights is that they are formed to make money, and that that has some relevance to people without money:
�Should homeless people have more free speech rights, since they clearly have less money?�
That is pure sophistry that only a terribly cynical cad could resort to�or someone so weak in the head that someone should tell him to stop making an ass of himself. For it is clearly not a matter of the corporations not having rightsn because they are formed to make money but because they are �formed� artificially but are not born or naturalized into citizenship.
Continuing his attempt to obfuscate and obscure simple facts, Max claims:
�More to the point, why should partnerships have free speech rights, but corporations not have any?�
But partnerships do not have free speech rights, the partners involved have free speech rights and the same privileges all other citizens have to use their own monies up to their fair share to support the publication or broadcast of their free speech. Likewise, the stockholders and employees of corporations have equally free speech and equal; privileges to use their what of their personal funds they choose up to their fair share to support the publication and broadcast of their personal political opinions. No person�s or citizens rights are to be abridged. But corporations have no free speech nor should any of their funds be used to publish or broadcast the �corporations� supposed political opinions. Corporations have no such opinion. But citizens can try to use the corporations� funds to publish and broadcast their opinions as if those were the corporations� political opinions. However, the corporations have no opinions of any kind and no rights or privileges to Express, Publish or Broadcast those non-existent opinions.
Max also quotes me as saying: �Those who contribute to [non-profits] set up to bring their voices and monies together for the purpose of expressing their opinions are more akin to the privately owned or partnership businesses.�
I meant by that, that they are using their own monies as are partners pr private owners of businesses who take their own money our of their own businesses to contribute withoin their fair share what they want to in politics. Even a corporate shareholder can sell their shares, or use their profits issued by a corporation to publish or broadcast their own political expressions to the extent fairly allowed by law. So there is no basis for confusion or Max�s obfuscation.
* [Max:] �Third, corporate law is mainly state law. Corporate charters are granted by the state based on state law. Delaware corporate law is more corporation-friendly (and more developed) than other states.�
Max pretends to be befuddled by my response that: �While that is true it is also irrelevant.�
Rather, Max insists that �My second reply is relevant because edromar was complaining about the Constitutional silence on corporate free speech. That silence isn�t amazing when you consider the role state law plays in the equation. Yes, federal laws (such as the Lanham Act and any SEC-related law) trump state laws. But, when federal law is silent, the Constitution clearly permits state law to fill the void.�
But that is only true in regard to citizens� rights. And it does not follow that because there are no federal rights to citizenship for non-persons such as corporations, there are such in the states. Just because laws are passed to regulate actions by entities, that does not mean that those entities are citizens. For example, our Constitution in I.8 gives Congress the power to set up state militias to resist insurgents. That does not give those insurgents rights. States can create whatever their citizens have given them the right to create without thiose being citizens with rights. They can create a state Capitol building. It is not a person or citizen with rights. Neither is a corporation set up under state law a person with rights to express its own political opinion (although its owners and employees have all the same political rights as do all other citizens�but they just shouldn�t use corporate funds to express their own political opinions).
I am pleased to see that Max, despite being unnecessarily cynical about �All campaign finance reform and lobbying reform laws� which he thinks �will be broken as long as they are written by the same people who benefit from broken campaign finance and lobbying laws.� He suggests that anyone who can �Figure out a Constitutional way to change the law without Congress�s involvement, and you�ll become my personal hero.�
1. States can create a Constitutional amendment so clear taht even Supreme Court Justices could not ignore it (despite the Justices rape of the 14th Amendment).
2.. People could make it a litmus test for every politician to agree to vote only for judges who agree to deny corporations any right to use their funds for any political or governmental purposes from political contributions to lobbying. Unfortuneately just because there is a way it does not follow that there will be a will or a new reality.
Max Lybbert on Oct 21 04 at 12:29 PM posted:
“And to clarify, edromar notes (accurately):
/* Finally, Max says sarcastically: �Fifth, the Congress, using its Constitutional authority, set up the FEC. You may have heard of it.� */
�[edromar] responds by noting where the FEC has been asleep at the wheel. It is interesting that his examples include Sinclair�s decision to air an anti-Kerry documentary, but he doesn�t say why it should be illegal to air.�
It should be a criminal offense subject to being disqualified for any office one is running for to knowingly and obviously lie about any material fact related to one�s opponent or the job being sought, or to refuse to disown and publically reject any relevant, material such untrue claim made that is publicized in or by the media. In Sinclair�s case, from what I was told, they were going to present as a documentary without correcting the lies being told by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that Kerry had said that all Vietnam veteran were guilty of what amount to war crimes. Since my wife teaches in College Speech courses, as an example of persuasive advocacy, Kerry�s testimony to the Committee I have watched it repeatedly and know that he never goes beyond saying that many Vietnan veterans have told him that they and some people they knew and served with had engaged in such war crimes and crimes against the Geneva Conventions. What Kerry said is obviously not that every veteran was guilty of such crimes. Nor were the claims that he reported as having been made in any way inconsistent with the facts now accepted as true by all objective historians. Not Kerry, but those who sent soldiers into situations that they were clearly unprepared to deal with are the cause of the loss of hnor by many young men just as the Abughraid crimes smack of misleadership of young people unprepared to have the power that corrupts and the absolute power that corrupted them absolutely.
I would have no objection if Sinclair had wanted to air a documentary about how some people are so desperate to rewrite history to make an honorable silk purse out of the sows ear we have all heard of from history that they will lie and cheat to try to mislead people. That would have been a news story worthy of presentation. But no news organization could present such lies as a documentary relating to Kerry.
Max said he will �…assume that [edromar]�s concerned Kerry won�t get equal time.�
Actually, I am merely concerned that obvious lies not be presented as news or documentaries of the truth. Obviously, if such were to be on, the subject should have an opportunity to answer them. But such lies go far beyond endangering the innocent candidate. They also endanger the whole electoral process in which people should be able to trust what is said by a candidate and in his behalf. That which feeds cynicism weakens democracy. So such lies are crimes against our country as well as against certain candidates. There is no place for lies in politics.
Max says that �documentaries weren�t considered when the law was written,� although I have no idea what laws he has in mind. Thus I have no way of knowing what laws he claims he �will agree with edromar on principle,� so I can not tell what he wants me to agree to. However, I know of no reason why I would �…agree… that airing of Fahrenheit 9/11 or footage from the various Kerry-supporting concerts should also be considered political ads, and equal time ought to be offered to Bush in those those cases.�
Both those factors are irrelevant. The Swift Boat Ads and Sinclair are inappropriate because they include lies that are fitting only in overtly touted works of fiction or documentaries or news shows that point out the lies. If Sinclair had advertisers who wanted to present those things as works of fiction (which they were), and it was a viable commercial activity for the corporation where the potential voters would not have been liable to be misled by not realizing that was all lies, then I would have no objection to their being aired. It would not be necessary to grant �equal time�.
Yes I did �also bring up the Swift Boat Veterans ads, but overlook[ed] Moveon.org�s various ads.� However, I am not familiar with any move-on add that lied to the American people about anything. Bush did dodge the draft by going into the National Guard and he did go AWOL if he did not actually dessert. Eventually, he was released from his flight and other responsiblities for the good of the service since he was useless. That was probably because of a brain fried on Coke, but we have not yet fully deciphered the code.
Max concludes: �The system is broken, but I think it�s broken at a different level than what edromar identifies.�
I certainly did not claim that the system is broken on only one level. Nor can it be fixed in only one way. But we have to begin by getting clear about how many problems we face in our voting system.
Well, I must admit that edromar made a good case for permitting 527s to engage in campaign activities while preventing corporations from doing so. I think he still hasn’t quite grokked the “Nexus of Contracts,” but I’ll work with what I have.
And I’ll start by pointing out that there are certain laws under consideration at any time that affect certain corporations. I think it is safe to say that the various investors in those corporations would want their side heard. In those cases, I can’t see much difference between a corporation getting involved in politics and a 527 doing so.
I also believe that edromar’s statement, “Rights belong to individuals, not ‘groups’ and I am quite happy to allow every single individual who works for a corporation to exercise every single right of every other individual” comes close to describing the system that exists today. Corporate donations into politics exist, but are extremely limited. As I stated earlier, when a certain company is tied to giving millions to a particular cause, that is a reference to board members, PACs, 527s and others related to the company, not the company’s contributions. Those contributions, then, are proof of individuals tied to that company exercising their rights.
I also admit that I was wrong in assuming edromar opposed Sinclair’s airing of “Stolen Honor” on equal time grounds. I agree with edromar that political speech is exactly the kind of speech that must be held to exacting standards of honesty. I don’t agree with edromar’s proposed penalties.
And, finally, IIRC, Constitutional Amendments get touched by Congress. Congress may appoint a Amendment committee (such as it did with the 21st Amendment), but it is Congress’s decision.
But, for the record, I would like edromar to point out if Kerry did actually spend Christmas in Cambodia (as he told Congress) or fifty miles from the border (as he wrote in his diary), throw his medals over the White House fence, get an honorable discharge when he left the military or ten years later (when Carter declared veterans with other-than-honorable discharges could petition to have them changed), and if his picture actually does hang in Viet Nam’s war museum as a “friend of the state.”
I agree that the result of allowing big corporate cronies to control the federal government (as represented by the republicans), has brought us to our current sorry state. However, I doubt the authors assumption that reining in their greed will improve the situation for American workers. I am a small business owner and a as liberal as they come. However, my business could not exists if I were to manufacture our products in the US. I tried for years and labor is simply too expensive to make a profit. The reality is that labor in our over populated world is cheap and up until recently the US has been largely insulated from that reality. And one need only look to Europe to see the result of protecting the local labor market from the world market. Unemployment there is a huge problem and economies are stagnant. If not for tourism the economies of southern Europe would probably colapse.
Owner of a training school. Is having difficulty maintaining without sufficient finances.
Focus does have the 501 C3. Has been approved for 3 programs and is persistent and wiill
get through all of this.