Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Jack, what you say in your introductory paragraphs, may become true, but, it is presumptuous in the extreme to state that this unprecedented condition of humankind and nations will prove to be a net positive.

There is much that is new to human history taking place. The advent of nuclear weapons proliferation for example. The greatest concentration of human beings on the earth’s surface ever. The mass conversion of earth’s natural state resources to artificial state consumables and waste byproducts. And these are just a few.

There is much that can and may fail in this haphazard development of humanity and civilization around the globe. Inauspicious failures at the wrong time, could spell massive human population declines, and even a reversal of the path on which we, as a biological species, are embarked upon.

I want your rosy scenario to become true for the future. However, I would venture to say that to insure that it does, the people’s, governments, and economics of our species will have to far better balance opportunistic behavior with deliberate, rational, and ongoing tested courses of action if we are to insure such an outcome.

There is much hope in the admission of mankind’s intellects that our species is now globally interdependent, and that much more care and united common interest vigilance is now required of our nations, our peoples, and our institutions. Free enterprise however, as it is developing today in the form of oligopolies with ever growing political influence, is now one of the greatest threats humanity faces going forward.

The reason is that such oligopolies have but one master. And it is a short term, short sighted master, for which profit, regardless of the consequences to the planet, the species, or long term survival requirements, is the only governing interest and guide to action. This is as true of development in Communist China as it is in the U.S. These oligopolies are strategically making inroads to accessing the power of governments and mass communications to further their own short sighted ends.

If these oligopolies succeed in becoming themselves the power within governments, our species’ future on this planet is anything but assured as safer, more prosperous, and more inextinguishable.

Revelations are unfolding this week in the Congress about how the EPA became the instrument of the oligopolies under the Bush administration and how the consequences reveal an agenda that made children and adults expendable in the name of profitability. This is the battle being waged around the world, and democracy so far has not proven to be a very effective defense against in this battle between a deliberative future for humankind vs. one determined by the shortest route to next quarter’s profits by the oligopolies. This includes the industrial military complexes in the large nations which Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower warned about so emphatically and prophetically.

I guess this article is inspired by the book by Fareed Zakaria
, The Post-American World, but I wonder when we will actually become a market-based democracy, without the central planning of the District of Columbia, and Arlington, that makes Virginia prosperous, instead of a rural backwater. Democracy sounds so nice, much better than this coporate oligarchy crap with their overpaid commisars, that we have here.

Exactly when was the “couple generations ago” that we were “THE market economy”? I guess you are talking about a short period during the 1920s, when we were prosperous because we stayed out WW1 until the very end of it. That is obviously not a set of circumstances that could easily be duplicated again.

The problem with your scenario Jack is that a small group of super wealthy are being allowed to choreograph how this all plays out. They have the means to manipulate the process to benefit their greed induced wants. This small committee of global financial wizards are regulating the world to ensure a continuance of compounding wealth for a select few. They are doing everything they can to ensure that they control how we spend our money and guarantee that they will get a large percentage of all we earn. As David says this process is driven by profits. It has been obvious for some time now that where corporate needs are concerned profits trump human suffering. The global market may distribute opportunity and products more evenly around the world, but at what cost to the masses of working class people if not properly regulated.

Should us common folks simply sit back and allow this process to continue until eventually the corporate powers of this world will have molded a society in which they dictate circumstances? Is there really any valid reason to believe that an evolution of corporate global control is not happening right now? Is a ruling class of global financial commissars with the influence to control how we live really any different than socialism?

I would love to be optimistic here. I can imagine nothing better than a world in which everyone is treated fairly and has available all the good things in life. But I must admit to being pessimistic here. But it is a cautious pessimism. I do not like the idea of a few being allowed to determine how a global society will play out. It seems to me that there is a bit too much room for error and greed to trump human rights.

One of the reasons a planned economy is so attractive is because what people want is not always what people want. Because a free market is based on consumers demands, we get huge entertainment and luxury sector of the economy. In fact entertainment is the USs’ main export.

Do we really need 1 million units of fake vomit? NO. Is there some factory in China that is producing some as we speak? Yes.

There is a demand for coral necklaces, and aquariums filled with exotic fish. Are these demands wreaking havoc on our fragile environment? YES.

I am not saying people are stupid. I’m not saying I know what is best for anybody. I do know that these two examples are a waste of TIME LIFE AND RESOURCES. These things are undervalued in our current economy.

I am saying that people are selfish. I am saying that we are masochists.

We have turned away from the harsh struggle of life and it spread across the universe and have chosen a warm cozy burning bed.

We also have seen that the market does not plan well for the future, and as I have said in the past often takes a “if it ain’t broke” attitude.

*what people want is not always what people need

also, well stated RickIl

The reason is that such oligopolies have but one master. And it is a short term, short sighted master, for which profit, regardless of the consequences to the planet, the species, or long term survival requirements, is the only governing interest and guide to action.

This is an interesting characterization of corporations. Do any human beings work at these oligopolies???

I witnessed the beginnings of the free market movement in China in 1989 when I visited a province in China (can’t remember the name, but it adjoins Macau, just across the bay from Hong Kong) in which the farmers were allowed to keep a share of the crops they produced above what the centralized government demanded from them.

Our Chinese guide explained that he and most of those he knew were not communists, but merely paid lip service to those in command.

We visited a couple of rural farming communities and their lives, while in no way comparable to Western lives, were substantially better than in the other provinces. They were breathing the first whiffs of a free market and loved it. With the profits from their share of their labor some even had sewing machines and other conveniences we take for granted.

I have watched China over the years since 1989 and this small beginning has spread throughout the country and has lifted the life of millions who have benefited. The change from centralized planning and pervasive heavy-handed government rules and planning to an ever-expanding free market economy is astonishing to watch. As China’s vast population gains power thru free markets I believe they will some day throw off the shackles of communist socialism.

Jim M

It is interesting that you praise the emerging free market in China. Here we can truly see the hideous realities.

People sell sawdust as baby food. (resulting in brain swelling and death)

People sell Dvds of American movies for barely above the cost of production. (5-10 rmb) ($.67-$1.25)

Advertisements for forged diplomas and certifications literally line the streets..

Why, because there is a demand, and there is very little enforced regulation.

Intellectual Property rights is a form of regulation. Food and drug safety acts are regulation.

How is a business supposed to enfore these regulations on a society or a competitor?

The market will never, never be truly free. Thank a higher power for that.

“We have turned away from the harsh struggle of life and it spread across the universe and have chosen a warm cozy burning bed. “

I would like to recant the above statement, as it is obviously ridiculous, and reflects my comfortable position in life, as well as my disconnect from people that do struggle to merely survive.

Jim,

I have to echo some of Jason’s comments above.
I was in China in ‘95 and ‘97, though admittedly I haven’t been back since.
Wages were $2.00 a day.
You could buy Adobe Suite, and Microsoft Office Suite for $10.00 American each.

Perhaps China is going through the development stage that Japan went through in the ’50s, and Korea went through in the ’80s, and ’90s.

The Chinese seem to be great imitators, but not great inovators.
Surely the reason they are kicking our ass right now is that most of our major corporations have moved their manufacturing to China.

I can only assume that China’s days as the major supplier of rubber dog poop are numbered.

One of the reasons a planned economy is so attractive is because what people want is not always what people need.

But who presumes to know and define needs of the citizenry and, therefore, direct capital to meet those needs? To paraphrase Adam Smith, any man or group of men presumptuous enough to claim that knowledge is unfit to exercise it.

Jason and Rocky, I apologize for not making it more clear that many problems still exist in China, those called “hideous realities” by Jason.

My point is that an emerging free market in China has benefited millions of their people and is a step in the right direction.

Too often those of both the liberal and conservative position believe one is black and the other is white.

In reality, liberals have served as the accelerator and conservatives as the brake. No one wants the car to spin off the cliff for going to fast, or be rear-ended for going to slow; realizing that at times, we have done both.

I’ll continue to apply the brake and you will continue to hit the accelerator and we’ll be just fine as long as the fool at the steering wheel doesn’t fall asleep or isn’t on drugs.

Fake vomit and rubber dog poop could be a metaphor for the contents of a WalMart. When they first opened up, I thought, wow, look at all these nifty cheap little things. Later on, I looked at the same stuff and realized it was all just useless crap.

The thing that bugs me most are the shoe companies. You find a brand of shoe that fits and is comfortable, but the next time you buy the same brand, it’s not the same, even if it looks the same. They are all racing to the bottom of the labor market, and can’t even provide a consisently reliable product.

Mr Haney said: “This is an interesting characterization of corporations.”

My characterization was of oligopolies, not corporations. Amongst corporations there are examples of finely run operations which take life, liberty, and environment very much into their considerations and operations.

Oligopolies on the other hand, are monopolies made of more than one party in the industry. OPEC is one such oligopoly. The Pharmaceutical industry is another. These industries have squeezed competitiveness out of their industries and replaced it with mutual benefit and cooperation dedicated to increasing their primary investor’s wealth above all other interests and everyone else. The military industrial players are another example.

Jack:

There you go being optimistic again.

A couple of points.

1. Democracy usually grows inversely related to the price of oil. There for as one article I recently read stated Democracy and Market based economics is in a bit of a slump as of recent.

2. I came across another statistic. In 1940 England, France and Germany combined had a GDP slightly less than USA. Today they are about half. If someone wants to talk about the demise of our country, they should look at Europe first. The “big three” of Europe have slipped from 20% of world GDP to about 10% where as America is about the same a percentage of GDP.

3. A much larger story that what happens to the USA seems to me to be the decline of Japan, Germany, France, Italy etc. Socialism is about to take a big fall as they start to drop off the planet. America’s GDP grows about 70% faster than old Europe and Japan.

4. I look for China and USA to pretty much be running things in 20 years.

5. I am curious about Brazil’s oil production. Wow what a difference in world politics if we do not need middle east oil anymore.

Jim,

“My point is that an emerging free market in China has benefited millions of their people and is a step in the right direction.”

Point taken, however, one of Jasonn’s “hideous realities” is that because of an unbridled “free market” the air in Eastern China is nearly toxic.

11 of the 20 most polluted cities in the world are in China, and most of the major cities in China that didn’t make the list aren’t far behind.

I grew up outside LA in the ’50s and ’60s. I know from air pollution, and the LA of then doesn’t hold a candle to what is going on in China right now.

Mr. Haney said: “But who presumes to know and define needs of the citizenry and, therefore, direct capital to meet those needs? To paraphrase Adam Smith, any man or group of men presumptuous enough to claim that knowledge is unfit to exercise it.”

Then you are opposed to supply side economics in which a very few at the top of management decided on product lines and diversity, instead of letting demand and competition do that? General Motors was such a supply side run corporation, refusing to anticipate and listen to customer demands, all the while losing market share to companies that would, like Toyota, Honda, and Kia.

Regulation is absolutely necessary to prevent monopolism and oligopolism which, as you say, constitutes a handful of persons dictating what the market shall have, in what amounts, and when. The natural end state of investor driven corporations is monopoly. You do realize that, right? Adam Smith has very much to say on that matter. Adam Smith has even more to say on what is prerequisite of a people in terms of moral and ethical sentiment if they are to constrain the invisible hand of competition from reaching its ultimate conclusion without regulation. See Theory of Moral Sentiments, the work Adam Smith first wrote as the foundation for Wealth of Nations. For wealth alone is insufficient a motive to create and maintain quality of life and humanity towards and between people, especially amongst those with both wealth and power whose wealth and power become self-sustaining against all other considerations and pressures without an immersion in the moral sentiments of common working folk of good moral and ethical character.

Here is a passage from Adam Smith worth noting:

As the violation of justice is what men will never submit to from one another, the public magistrate is under a necessity of employing the power of the commonwealth to enforce the practice of this virtue. Without this precaution, civil society would become a scene of bloodshed and disorder, every man revenging himself at his own hand whenever he fancied he was injured. To prevent the confusion which would attend upon every man’s doing justice to himself, the magistrate, in all governments that have acquired any considerable authority, undertakes to do justice to all, and promises to hear and to redress every complaint of injury.

In all well-governed states too, not only judges are appointed for determining the controversies of individuals, but rules are prescribed for regulating the decisions of those judges; and these rules are, in general, intended to coincide
with those of natural justice. It does not, indeed, always happen that they do so in every instance. Sometimes what is called the constitution of the state, that is, the interest of the government; sometimes the interest of particular orders of men who tyrannize the government, warp the positive laws of the country from what natural justice would prescribe.

[Section IV -Of the Manner in which different Authors have treated of the practical Rules of Morality - Theory of Moral Sentiments.]

Clearly, Adam Smith in the passage above concedes the need for Government regulation in order to insure justice need not be taken into the hands of the population’s individuals injured by the hand of a neighbor or a corporation.

I would caution against paraphrasing Adam Smith carelessly, especially without context. Adam Smith deals with very different topics in his writings and states other’s cases in detail before offering up his own conclusions regarding them.

When Adam Smith says: “But who presumes to know and define needs of the citizenry…”, he is clearly drawing the distinction between dictatorship or monarchism as opposed to democracy in which the citizens decide for themselves how to direct some capital in the form of tax revenues to meet those needs, which the market place cannot or will not.

There was a time when the worlds factories laid in ruin. Burned and bombed out. America became the worlds factory. Life was good. But as the rest of the world plays catch up and perhaps passes us, things could even get better.

Hate mongers who want to pander disaster to force political change they desire will not admit that we become even more prosperous and great….but “yes we can”.

David,

I will concede that OPEC is a cartel, but I have trouble seeing how the pharmaceutical industry and military industry are immune from competition. There are dozens of major companies and hundreds of minor players in the development of pharmaceuticals and military supplies. What am I missing? Isn’t it government regulation run wild that stifles competition and allows oligopolies? Legislative protection via the the unhealthy marriage between corporate lobbyists and lawmakers is very dangerous to the public. Some protectionist legislation does exists for the above industries, but my judgment is that competitiveness has only been constricted and not replaced “with mutual benefit and cooperation.”

Now let me give Adam Smith’s statement in the original context,

What is the species of domestic industry which his capital can employ, and of which the produce is likely to be of the greatest value, every individual, it is evident, can, in his local situation, judge much better than any statesman or lawgiver can do for him. The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it.

So my interpretation of this is that government economic planning is a bad idea because a government can’t presume to know what consumers want or need. To be clear, I have no problem with supply side economics. As you made clear with your example of GM, corporations which think they know better than their customers will cause their corporation to lose market share. Thus, the consumer and investors act as the correcting mechanism by withdrawing their capital. I don’t see an equivalent correcting mechanism when government planning and regulation run a muck.

Regulation is absolutely necessary to prevent monopolism and oligopolism which, as you say, constitutes a handful of persons dictating what the market shall have, in what amounts, and when. The natural end state of investor driven corporations is monopoly. You do realize that, right?

No, regulation is not necessary to prevent a monopoly. More often regulation allows these entities to arise. This is illustrated and explained here.

When Adam Smith says: “But who presumes to know and define needs of the citizenry…”…

Correction: I said that. Obviously, my sentiments are similar to his in at least one respect.

…he is clearly drawing the distinction between dictatorship or monarchism as opposed to democracy in which the citizens decide for themselves how to direct some capital in the form of tax revenues to meet those needs, which the market place cannot or will not.

In the full context of the quote above, I don’t believe he is speaking about directing tax revenues. Any confusion on this point is my fault. I didn’t provide the appropriate context for my original statement.

Admittedly, I have only an elementary knowledge of Adam Smith’s writings. I’m twenty-five. I have time to read up and understand the moral underpinnings of his economic theories. However, what I gather from the remainder of your post is that Adam Smith advocated for government regulation. Still, what kind of government regulation? I don’t think he intends the government to regulate the allocation of capital or grant some form of legal protection to a company. Instead, the government’s role is to regulate the interactions between individuals and/or corporations. Without further reading, I am unsure what he intends these regulations to cover beyond a legal framework for the honoring of contracts and the protection of life, liberty, and property.

Mr Haney said: “There are dozens of major companies and hundreds of minor players in the development of pharmaceuticals and military supplies.”

This comment demonstrates you have an opinion but NO research on the matter. Try googling “military contracts no competitive”, and “monopoly pharmaceutical”. You will get ample education on the matter and your comments will be much better informed on this topic.

As for A. Smith, first read his very first sentence you quoted through the eyes of the late 1700’s America. “What is the species of domestic industry which his capital can employ, and of which the produce is likely to be of the greatest value, every individual, it is evident, can, in his local situation, judge much better than any statesman or lawgiver can do for him.”

Here he is referring to an individual with something to invest in production, and a very, very, local marketplace. Not directly applicable to today’s corporations nor even, many small businesses who do not serve the local marketplace, but, a global marketplace in primarily services, not products. Be that as it may, government interference in business today is of two general kinds, prohibitory in order to protect the state or society (nuclear arms) or subsidiary, providing incentives to alter business choices to fulfill unmet demands of necessities for the well being of the nation’s people. In the area of subsidies, our government has a very mixed record of aiding society (stockpiling of immunological defenses for pandemic flue for example on the positive side), and causing havoc and enormous waste in the marketplace (ethanol subsidies to get votes in the HeartLand for example.)

Now, let’s take the second part of that first paragraph: “The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it.”

Here he refers to statesmen directing where individuals must direct their capital asset, time, energy, or money investment in other’s time and energy in the production of a service or product. Guess what? He is right, and in America our government does not engage in such direction in the for profit marketplace, save some prohibitions in the national or social interest like nuclear arms, addictive drugs, or protections of the public assets as in ANWR or Yellowstone Nat’l. Park, for example.

You said: “So my interpretation of this is that government economic planning is a bad idea because a government can’t presume to know what consumers want or need.”

It is not that a politician can’t anticipate the need of the marketplace as well as a business person. The folly of doing so is that politicians make decisions of a lasting nature, and business marketplaces are highly fluid and changing. In a business, if the management alters their business and the immediate feedback of that alteration is negative, that management can, without hindrance or incumbrance, reverse the decision. Our government is incapable by design, of making these kinds of timely decisions. Government’s Ethanol production mandate is having very negative consequences, but, the Congress is not now capable of reversing the decision without jeopardizing their reelections. Hence we are stuck with a bad decision over time, compounding its negative consequences, rather than reversing the decision that produced the unintended consequences.

Mitt Romney was a business person in government. His business acumen does not diminish just because he becomes a governor of Mass. But, his agility as a decision maker is gravely diminished as governor by the fact that his decisions must carry the weight the public opinion and the Congress along. Which means his ability to micromanage and adjust the decision’s parameters over time to fit the needs and consequences as a business person in the private sector can, are seriously compromised and diminished.

We are in perfect agreement on this, since you said: “I don’t see an equivalent correcting mechanism when government planning and regulation run a muck.”

But then you say: “No, regulation is not necessary to prevent a monopoly.” Which is utter nonsense. Reality demonstrates the free markets propensity toward monopoly all the time and every modern democracy on the face of the earth has anti-monopolistic regulations in place, to minimize monopolistic behavior.

Your comment is nonsensical too when saying: “More often regulation allows these entities to arise.”

That is a broad general statement which does not hold up. Regulation can promote or hinder monopolization, obviously. Just because Republicans favored monopolies, or just because Congress persons of all political parties barter with potential monopolistic interests for campaign support, does not in anyway imply that there is something inherent in the concept or action of regulation that promotes monopolies and oligopolies.

You said: “In the full context of the quote above, I don’t believe he is speaking about directing tax revenues. Any confusion on this point is my fault. I didn’t provide the appropriate context for my original statement.”

Hence my caution about paraphrasing Adam Smith. It can be done and quite well, but, not without being well versed in all his writings, since he builds new writings on the settled conclusions and demonstrations of previous writings.

And yes, the dialogue between us is now confused by mixing your quote with his. Right, in the actual quote of A. Smith, he is not speaking of taxation spending priorities. Government and private industry are two entirely different enterprises with entirely different methodologies and ends. Adam Smith was not capable of addressing today’s oligopolies established through the nick and nod consent of pro-corporate politicians to corporate lobbyists and pressure groups dealing in reelection options and support.

In his day, such tactics were far less sophisticated and complex, and simply deemed blackmail and bribery. Nor could he address the multi-national corporations whose entities take on quasi-governmental roles of civil servants, and upon whom our economy, citizens, and politicians grow ever more dependent upon for maintaining the status quo of their particular station on the financial ladder as net debtor or investor.

Adam Smith does however address avarice and greed which do injustice to the common good and welfare in Theory of Moral Sentiments, and thereby provides excellent commentary on the injustice of the incestuous relationship between politicians in ever greater need of money to remain in office, insider political marketplace trading, and professional lobbyists of corporations whose job it is to redirect governmental intent from its ends of national, state, and local welfare for all, toward the profit ends of the corporations which factor individual and social welfare losses as a result of their enterprise as nothing more than the cost of doing business and making a profit.

Adam Smith is NOT opposed to government regulation of industry in general. He is opposed to government management of the private sector, which, as he and I and you point out, it is incapable of doing efficiently. He is not opposed to regulation that prohibits private sector ends which undermine individual or social welfare of the citizens of the state. In fact, in Theory of Moral Sentiments, he clearly makes the argument that the people, through their democracy, have every right to restrict and defend against those who would reap profit or gains from injustice perpetrated upon others or who would violate the rights of others in the pursuit of profit.

Your understanding is then, very much on target when you say, “I don’t think he intends the government to regulate the allocation of capital or grant some form of legal protection to a company. Instead, the government’s role is to regulate the interactions between individuals and/or corporations.”

I would append to your quote: “toward the end of insuring justice and addressing injustices committed”. Regulating private interactions only becomes the government’s business when redress of injustice is presented to it for review, or, when action comes to light as having such egregious negative impact upon the common good and public welfare as to demand corrective action be taken (VIOXX and Ford’s Pinto).

David

I like Adam Smith. But as a proponent of free market I understand that Adam Smith does not have the last word on anything. That is the big difference between free market/pragmatists and virtually every other ideology.

If you were a Marxist and I could convince you that what you are doing is contradicted by Marxist theory, you would be chagrined. If you were a free market guy and I showed a contradiction with Adam Smith, the proper response is “so what?”

The general proposition is that individuals and firms make better decisions about those things that concern them than government bureaucrats and that when agreements are entered into voluntarily they increase the total good of all parties involved. The market mechanism coordinates and aggregates all these decisions and allows the system to tap into the intelligence, knowledge and innovation of all the people. Adam Smith did not understand this mechanism and used the “hidden hand” metaphor. We now have a better understanding of how this works, but we still cannot harness or closely manage it.

Within the general proposition, a free market guy can do whatever works and can keep on doing it until it doesn’t work or something else works better.

You agreed re the rigidity of government. That is why we need to keep government to a minimum and not ask it to micromanage our society. Government almost always accepts the invitation and in the extreme cases we get communism/fascism.

I think Mr. Haney is correct that in the long run monopoly cannot exist w/o government collusion or even mandate. If people are free to innovate, they will find ways around or substitutes for the products controlled by a monopoly, unless a government makes that impossible or very difficult. Government regulation limits competition in many industries. Some regulation is required, but we always have to keep in mind that we are playing with fire.

Anyway, I don’t think we disagree in the general directions. You have a little more faith in government than I do. I believe there are lots of things government really CANNOT do and we get trouble when we try to extend its reach.

I think you are wrong, Jack. Monopolies can certainly exist without government collusion and/or mandate. The key for the monopoly is to not abuse it’s monopolistic market. If they don’t raise the price above minimum profit, don’t misuse their service to their customers, etc, then there is no motive for an alternative to crop up. Being a monoply in and of itself is not ‘bad’, it is what people do once they obtain a monopoly and the reasons for creating one in the first place that ends up being an issue.

However, the existence of a monoply, IMO, removes the ability to have a free market. How can a market be ‘free’ if the laws of supply and demand are hampered or violated because of the existence of a monopoly? That is one area of disagreement I have with the Libertarian Party that are calling for the end of anti-trust laws. Those laws need to be in place to prevent the elimination of the free market.

Jack said: “The general proposition is that individuals and firms make better decisions about those things that concern them than government bureaucrats and that when agreements are entered into voluntarily they increase the total good of all parties involved.”

As a general proposition this is true, up to the point that the free marketplace players take advantage of the nation, the society, or members of it, utilizing their vastly superior wealth and political power to protect their injustices from redress. Adam Smith was not, and is not, wrong in describing the concept of democracy as the people having the power and right to assert defense against the unjust practices of the marketplace.

Rhinehold is exactly correct. Oversight of the marketplace is necessary in order for the people to become aware of, and defend against, those in the marketplace who would injure or commit unjust acts against the nation, the society, and its individuals. And the power to regulate is required to defend against such injury or injustices.

I will go further and state that the people through their democracy have the power and right to provide for themselves that which the marketplace can’t or won’t, and that which the people agree is necessary for the fulfillment of the ends outlined in the Declaration of Independence.

Having said that, the conservative principle of government leaving alone the marketplace players in the absence of superordinate national or social need and in the absence of injurious or unjust acts by market place players, is an eminently sound principle. One which virtually all American philosophers and economists agree with from Adam Smith to Keynes and Friedman.

Where Democrats and Republicans so often err is in failing to recognize that market interference requires micro surveillance and micro management to insure government interference for good purposes does not result in unintended negative outcomes. And you and I both know that our government is not structured to accommodate that requirement for intervention.

But, this reality does not negate the people’s right to protect themselves from unjust and injurious market players. Therefore, in this less than perfect world, government should generally stay out of competition with private markets, while retaining and exercising authority to punish or prohibit injurious or unjust market player practices, like monopolization or deceptive practices. Nor does this less than perfect reality negate a democratic people’s right to provide themselves with services or products which the private marketplace can’t or won’t provide.

Thus, the government of the people has the right to provide health care accommodation when the private marketplace won’t for 45 million people, or roughly 18% of the nation’s population, and bankrupt another 18% with private health insurance premiums and lack of coverage, if that be the will of the majority of the people. To argue against the people’s will on such a matter is to argue against the democratic republic concept, something Republicans and Libertarians too often find themselves doing without realizing it.

David R Remer said,

This comment demonstrates you have an opinion but NO research on the matter. Try googling “military contracts no competitive”, and “monopoly pharmaceutical”. You will get ample education on the matter and your comments will be much better informed on this topic.

I am doing biopharmaceutical research on a grant from NIH, and I’m not informed about the pharma industry??? Please be careful about your presumptions about what I do or do not know.

The major complaint of the “pharmaceutical monopoly” discussion is that patent protection gives someone a “monopoly” for 20 years. Frankly, the premise is absurd. I understand the frustration of wanting the latest and greatest medication to be cheap and widely available. The problem is that you can’t claim the right to someone’s intellectual property for whatever price you wish to pay.

However, I agree that the FDA has a few unnecessary standards which make it more difficult to enter the pharmaceutical market. While I acknowledge your viewpoint that a oligopoly has been created, I disagree. I believe the regulations in place have yet to create an such a situation.

In regards to the military contractors, I can understand the occasional need for a no bid contract, but the high number of no bid contracts occurring today is unacceptable. Still, I don’t understand how no bid contracts are of mutual benefit to the companies not awarded the contract. Clearly, it may benefit companies and politicians for this to carry on, but I have trouble with the claim that entire military contractor industry is for “mutual benefit and cooperation” based on this evidence. It’s effectively guilt by participation, and I find the idea logically unpalatable.

Here he refers to statesmen directing where individuals must direct their capital asset, time, energy, or money investment in other’s time and energy in the production of a service or product. Guess what? He is right, and in America our government does not engage in such direction in the for profit marketplace, save some prohibitions in the national or social interest like nuclear arms, addictive drugs, or protections of the public assets as in ANWR or Yellowstone Nat’l. Park, for example.

David, let’s be clear. There is no must in that quotation. Our wonderful politicians thought there ought to be more ethanol produced, so they created a subsidy. This is a clear example of our government changing the direction of capital in the for profit marketplace. Subsidies change investor and consumer behavior, and this is precisely why they are so dangerous. As you agreed, government planning and regulation run a muck does not have an effective correcting mechanism. This is why I am against almost all subsidies. They have too many unintended consequences. In general if a company can’t survive without the government helping it, it should be allowed to go bankrupt.

Rhinehold

I suppose if the monopoly is so benign and the product so unchanging a monopoly is possible. I would guess that something like salt or borax is probably at least local monopolies.

But you have to look at the need and not just the product. Take our favorite current example - gasoline. The competition for gas companies is not only other gas companies. The competition includes other forms of energy, bicycles, walking, conservation, telecommuting etc. It is impossible for a monopolist to cover all these bases w/o government limiting choices.

David

You know the government and the people are not the same thing. The government creates a constituency of its own and the government always represents the status quo, since nobody knows what the future can be and the government represents the current constituents.

As I have said many times, I understand that we need government and that it sometimes has to act decisively, but it should be small. And it has no mandate to act just because somebody is suffering… or thinks he is suffering. Government is by nature political. It tends to overreact and sometimes take the wrong action. What is popular is not always what is right.

I think the biggest problems for any government is sorting out responsibility. Decision making should be done by the people most familiar with the problem as close as possible to the problem being solved. This is almost never government. We also need to take into account the amount of involvement. A thousand people might have a vague, ill informed opinion about something, while the one guy actually working on the problem may have the right answer. All that points to the proper role of government as a general rule maker and a small player in average lives.

Finally, behavior matters. A good example is this mortgage mess. There are some “innocent victims” but there are a lot more active perpetrators, people who took out more house than they could afford and just are interested in avoiding their debts. Shocking as it sounds, there are a significant number of dishonest people. They get themselves in a extreme condition and then cry for help. It looks terrible for them teetering on the edge, but they often walked right out there themselves and if you save them this time they will do it again. … and again. The market, since it is impersonal, can discipline these sorts of people in ways not “compassionate government” can do. We need that.