Comments on: Welcome to the Plutocracy http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2010/01/welcome-to-the-plutocracy/ Place. Limits. Liberty. Thu, 09 Feb 2012 05:09:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Bruce Smith http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2010/01/welcome-to-the-plutocracy/#comment-27098 Bruce Smith Fri, 05 Feb 2010 22:54:19 +0000 http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=8089#comment-27098 The Supreme Court ruling is meddling by government and it can also be argued by the wrong branch of government. Why then have we not heard the Republican Party complaining? In normal circumstances they are usually always quick to condemn any government involvement in citizens affairs! To rephrase Ronald Reagan; "The last thing you ever want to hear is 'I'm a Supreme Court judge and I'm here to help.'" Doesn't the GOP's silence reveal how political the judges decision actually was? The Supreme Court ruling is meddling by government and it can also be argued by the wrong branch of government. Why then have we not heard the Republican Party complaining? In normal circumstances they are usually always quick to condemn any government involvement in citizens affairs! To rephrase Ronald Reagan; “The last thing you ever want to hear is ‘I’m a Supreme Court judge and I’m here to help.’” Doesn’t the GOP’s silence reveal how political the judges decision actually was?

]]> By: Bruce Smith http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2010/01/welcome-to-the-plutocracy/#comment-26653 Bruce Smith Mon, 01 Feb 2010 16:49:48 +0000 http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=8089#comment-26653 The American Constitution is Pre-Darwinian. Allow me to explain. Today we know that everything is in flux and adapt or die is the order of life and most certainly with market capitalism. Corporations know, for example, that hitting the right quality and price point for their goods and services is vital for survival. It’s vital also for attracting finance for investment and expansion to become, or remain, one of the major players. Corporations are on a treadmill and they will tend to exploit whatever resources they can to remain on that treadmill. These resources can be people, environment, finance or sovereignty to name but the obvious ones and that exploitation as we know can be abusive. Slavery, for example, was abolished less than 150 years ago in this country. However, with market capitalism we want the benefits without the dis-benefits and certainly don’t want the absurdity of state planned markets where supply and demand equilibria are rarely approached. Turning everything into worker-owned and controlled cooperatives may help but it isn’t going to stop the temptation to abuse since the market remains competitive. Ethics also may improve but desperate situations can produce desperate remedies. Where then can abuse be deterred? It can be deterred by the People acting through their government. This was how slavery was ended. The absurdity of the current American condition of politics is that a great many people through lack of analysis pretend that you can have market capitalism without the counter-check of government. The Financial Crash mess we’re in is largely due to this lack of joined up thinking. The banks of Wall Street were allowed to blow speculative bubbles because of the deregulation they lobbied for and the lack of application of those regulations which remained. They were allowed to make bets on non-GDP productive assets and then had to be bailed out by the taxpayer when the bets went wrong. Corporations and citizens both want to control their destinies but where else are you going to legitimately resolve a clash of the wills of the Concerned Citizens and the Market other than through the will of the People making law in their Federal and State assemblies? The buck has to stop somewhere! Of course it will be argued that these assemblies are full of politicians corrupted by money but that is a matter of campaign funding and lobbyist reform. The existence of the corruption does, however, also dramatically illustrate another abusive aspect of Market exploitation. Finally, it is also obvious that because of this continuing contest of wills each side will try to put their supporters in any representative body that can have an influence over the law. The Supreme Court is no exception but it is absurd to pretend that over the rules of how those supporters get to be elected to their Federal and State assemblies the Supreme Court can usurp the powers of Congress and especially the most democratically representative body the House of Representatives. Arguments from both the Concerned Citizens and Market should be heard loud and clear and not the arguments of one side drowned out by money. The health of any economy, not least the value of its currency, depends upon trust and to make it more difficult for trust to develop and even reduce it is great foolishness and certainly not wisdom. The American Constitution is Pre-Darwinian. Allow me to explain. Today we know that everything is in flux and adapt or die is the order of life and most certainly with market capitalism. Corporations know, for example, that hitting the right quality and price point for their goods and services is vital for survival. It’s vital also for attracting finance for investment and expansion to become, or remain, one of the major players. Corporations are on a treadmill and they will tend to exploit whatever resources they can to remain on that treadmill. These resources can be people, environment, finance or sovereignty to name but the obvious ones and that exploitation as we know can be abusive. Slavery, for example, was abolished less than 150 years ago in this country.

However, with market capitalism we want the benefits without the dis-benefits and certainly don’t want the absurdity of state planned markets where supply and demand equilibria are rarely approached. Turning everything into worker-owned and controlled cooperatives may help but it isn’t going to stop the temptation to abuse since the market remains competitive. Ethics also may improve but desperate situations can produce desperate remedies. Where then can abuse be deterred? It can be deterred by the People acting through their government. This was how slavery was ended. The absurdity of the current American condition of politics is that a great many people through lack of analysis pretend that you can have market capitalism without the counter-check of government. The Financial Crash mess we’re in is largely due to this lack of joined up thinking. The banks of Wall Street were allowed to blow speculative bubbles because of the deregulation they lobbied for and the lack of application of those regulations which remained. They were allowed to make bets on non-GDP productive assets and then had to be bailed out by the taxpayer when the bets went wrong.

Corporations and citizens both want to control their destinies but where else are you going to legitimately resolve a clash of the wills of the Concerned Citizens and the Market other than through the will of the People making law in their Federal and State assemblies? The buck has to stop somewhere! Of course it will be argued that these assemblies are full of politicians corrupted by money but that is a matter of campaign funding and lobbyist reform. The existence of the corruption does, however, also dramatically illustrate another abusive aspect of Market exploitation. Finally, it is also obvious that because of this continuing contest of wills each side will try to put their supporters in any representative body that can have an influence over the law. The Supreme Court is no exception but it is absurd to pretend that over the rules of how those supporters get to be elected to their Federal and State assemblies the Supreme Court can usurp the powers of Congress and especially the most democratically representative body the House of Representatives. Arguments from both the Concerned Citizens and Market should be heard loud and clear and not the arguments of one side drowned out by money. The health of any economy, not least the value of its currency, depends upon trust and to make it more difficult for trust to develop and even reduce it is great foolishness and certainly not wisdom.

]]> By: Cecelia http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2010/01/welcome-to-the-plutocracy/#comment-26628 Cecelia Mon, 01 Feb 2010 06:45:40 +0000 http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=8089#comment-26628 I agree it is not clear to me exactly what the Court meant by their exclusion of foreign corporations - what about multi national corporations? Exxon is most assuredly an American corporation yet it's holdings all over the world do not guarantee that it will exercise this new right by considering the well being of the US. Foreign or American owned the same problem is apparent - corporations exist to make profit and they will use whatever powers they are given for precisely to pursue that goal. I agree it is not clear to me exactly what the Court meant by their exclusion of foreign corporations – what about multi national corporations? Exxon is most assuredly an American corporation yet it’s holdings all over the world do not guarantee that it will exercise this new right by considering the well being of the US.

Foreign or American owned the same problem is apparent – corporations exist to make profit and they will use whatever powers they are given for precisely to pursue that goal.

]]> By: Siarlys Jenkins http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2010/01/welcome-to-the-plutocracy/#comment-26618 Siarlys Jenkins Mon, 01 Feb 2010 02:42:22 +0000 http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=8089#comment-26618 If there is one thing worse than leaving interpretation of the words of a constitution in the hands of a life-tenured Supreme Court, it is leaving the definition of individual rights up to a majority vote every time a question arises. Courts can play with ambiguity of meaning, but courts are bound by the letter of constitutional language. E.g., the Supreme Court of California ruled that the state constitution's guarantee of "equal protection of the laws" required the state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. However, when the constitution was amended, to say otherwise, there was nothing they could to about it. Some outraged litigants on the losing side tried to make a case to overturn the constitutional amendment, but a constitutional amendment is, by definition, constitutional. If there is one thing worse than leaving interpretation of the words of a constitution in the hands of a life-tenured Supreme Court, it is leaving the definition of individual rights up to a majority vote every time a question arises. Courts can play with ambiguity of meaning, but courts are bound by the letter of constitutional language. E.g., the Supreme Court of California ruled that the state constitution’s guarantee of “equal protection of the laws” required the state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. However, when the constitution was amended, to say otherwise, there was nothing they could to about it. Some outraged litigants on the losing side tried to make a case to overturn the constitutional amendment, but a constitutional amendment is, by definition, constitutional.

]]> By: Bruce Smith http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2010/01/welcome-to-the-plutocracy/#comment-26588 Bruce Smith Sun, 31 Jan 2010 17:17:52 +0000 http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=8089#comment-26588 Here is a more succinct version of my argument. The proxy war that took place in the Supreme Court with regard to election campaign limitations is at heart a war over the degree of dispossession for the purposes of consumption and capital investment a society can tolerate without social cohesion falling apart and violence ensuing. The proper place for the resolution of the amount of dispossession, and by who, is through the People’s use of the mechanisms of representative and participative democracy and not through a body which lacks direct accountability. Here is a more succinct version of my argument. The proxy war that took place in the Supreme Court with regard to election campaign limitations is at heart a war over the degree of dispossession for the purposes of consumption and capital investment a society can tolerate without social cohesion falling apart and violence ensuing. The proper place for the resolution of the amount of dispossession, and by who, is through the People’s use of the mechanisms of representative and participative democracy and not through a body which lacks direct accountability.

]]> By: Bruce Smith http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2010/01/welcome-to-the-plutocracy/#comment-26581 Bruce Smith Sun, 31 Jan 2010 15:01:06 +0000 http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=8089#comment-26581 As soon as you set up a Constitution attempting to address rights you are going to have a war over the interpretation of those "rights words" between those of sociopathic and cooperative disposition. You then further compound the problem by setting up a "proxy war body" of a few so called "wise" individuals to rule on the interpretation of these words. The only logical solution is that the final responsibility for the interpretation of rights should rest with the sovereignty of the people articulated through their representative assembly or through participative referenda organized by that assembly. It is then possible to do two things as an individual. Decide whether the majority decision is in the interests of the society's social cohesion, and if the rights issue became one of political factionalism, which it normally does, which faction you wish to identify with for future action or inaction. Indeed some societies, believe it or not, deliberately avoid having a constitution for the reasons I have outlined. To be arguing over whether the "wise" individuals meant foreign corporations or not is failing to see the wood for the trees. As soon as you set up a Constitution attempting to address rights you are going to have a war over the interpretation of those “rights words” between those of sociopathic and cooperative disposition. You then further compound the problem by setting up a “proxy war body” of a few so called “wise” individuals to rule on the interpretation of these words. The only logical solution is that the final responsibility for the interpretation of rights should rest with the sovereignty of the people articulated through their representative assembly or through participative referenda organized by that assembly. It is then possible to do two things as an individual. Decide whether the majority decision is in the interests of the society’s social cohesion, and if the rights issue became one of political factionalism, which it normally does, which faction you wish to identify with for future action or inaction. Indeed some societies, believe it or not, deliberately avoid having a constitution for the reasons I have outlined. To be arguing over whether the “wise” individuals meant foreign corporations or not is failing to see the wood for the trees.

]]> By: Wester http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2010/01/welcome-to-the-plutocracy/#comment-26564 Wester Sun, 31 Jan 2010 06:14:02 +0000 http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=8089#comment-26564 I have been confused a bit by this article which was sent to me by a "libertarian": Napolitano says "Alito was right" http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/01/28/andrew-napolitano-obama-state-union-campaign-finance-alito-supreme-court/ I am having a bit of trouble sorting this out. As far as I can tell, the ruling means that any entity - corporation or labor union or group of whoever - can not directly contribute to a political campaign, but can set up a separate satellite 'campaign' that orbits outside the existing candidate and buys advertising to support that candidate. Am I reading this correctly? Furthermore, the Napolitano article states that "...the president attacked this decision by arguing that the ruling permits foreign nationals and foreign corporations to spend money on American campaigns. " Which would technically be correct if the satellite campaign idea is correct. However the article goes on to say: " The Supreme Court opinion, which is 183 pages in length, specifically excludes foreign nationals and foreign-owned corporations from its ruling." And this would mean that foreigners and foreign-owned corporations can not participate in any satellite campaign organization. Is that correct? Finally, what constitutes a foreign-owned corporation? Does that mean 100% foreign owned? Or just partially foreign owned - like say News Corp. which is 5.7% owned by Prince Alwaleed bin Talal of Saudi Arabia? Thanks for your valuable insights and patience. I have been confused a bit by this article which was sent to me by a “libertarian”: Napolitano says “Alito was right”

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/01/28/andrew-napolitano-obama-state-union-campaign-finance-alito-supreme-court/

I am having a bit of trouble sorting this out. As far as I can tell, the ruling means that any entity – corporation or labor union or group of whoever – can not directly contribute to a political campaign, but can set up a separate satellite ‘campaign’ that orbits outside the existing candidate and buys advertising to support that candidate. Am I reading this correctly?

Furthermore, the Napolitano article states that

“…the president attacked this decision by arguing that the ruling permits foreign nationals and foreign corporations to spend money on American campaigns. ”

Which would technically be correct if the satellite campaign idea is correct.

However the article goes on to say:

” The Supreme Court opinion, which is 183 pages in length, specifically excludes foreign nationals and foreign-owned corporations from its ruling.”

And this would mean that foreigners and foreign-owned corporations can not participate in any satellite campaign organization. Is that correct?

Finally, what constitutes a foreign-owned corporation? Does that mean 100% foreign owned? Or just partially foreign owned – like say News Corp. which is 5.7% owned by Prince Alwaleed bin Talal of Saudi Arabia?

Thanks for your valuable insights and patience.

]]> By: Bruce Smith http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2010/01/welcome-to-the-plutocracy/#comment-26536 Bruce Smith Sat, 30 Jan 2010 19:10:56 +0000 http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=8089#comment-26536 You would have thought that the “sound” of the recent Financial Crash would have woken most people in America. It clearly did not wake the five Supreme Court judges who this week ruled in favor of lifting the restrictions on corporations trying to influence the outcome of political elections. They continue in their ideological slumber. Allow me to explain. Adam Smith’s famous quotation that “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest.” became I would argue one of the main distorted leitmotifs for the American Constitution. The Financial Crash was a wake-up call to this distortion. The economic guru Alan Greenspan had to admit as much before a House Committee that market fundamentalism was flawed because economic equilibrium can never be reached. Markets are always vulnerable to not clearing because money is rationed. In the case of the Financial Crash bankers made bad decisions to allocate credit for investment in real estate amongst other targets. This credit allocation was not just for the development of new real estate to meet demand which was a rational use of the market but for banks to knowingly, and in some cases unknowingly, inflate the value of existing real estate mainly homes (a great deal of money can be made from speculative bubbles through knowing when to “pump and dump”). Accordingly, this is where morality must meet markets. A good Constitution today would recognize that there will always be a need for the majority to democratically make rules to restrict selfish behavior in markets where reaching equilibrium is not consistently available. For the five Supreme Court judges to strengthen the hand of selfish CEO’s to drown out this message is foolishness in the extreme and if they had commonsense and morality they would call for a re-think of the Constitution to allow rational thinking to have a better chance of prevailing. You would have thought that the “sound” of the recent Financial Crash would have woken most people in America. It clearly did not wake the five Supreme Court judges who this week ruled in favor of lifting the restrictions on corporations trying to influence the outcome of political elections. They continue in their ideological slumber. Allow me to explain. Adam Smith’s famous quotation that “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest.” became I would argue one of the main distorted leitmotifs for the American Constitution. The Financial Crash was a wake-up call to this distortion. The economic guru Alan Greenspan had to admit as much before a House Committee that market fundamentalism was flawed because economic equilibrium can never be reached. Markets are always vulnerable to not clearing because money is rationed. In the case of the Financial Crash bankers made bad decisions to allocate credit for investment in real estate amongst other targets. This credit allocation was not just for the development of new real estate to meet demand which was a rational use of the market but for banks to knowingly, and in some cases unknowingly, inflate the value of existing real estate mainly homes (a great deal of money can be made from speculative bubbles through knowing when to “pump and dump”). Accordingly, this is where morality must meet markets. A good Constitution today would recognize that there will always be a need for the majority to democratically make rules to restrict selfish behavior in markets where reaching equilibrium is not consistently available. For the five Supreme Court judges to strengthen the hand of selfish CEO’s to drown out this message is foolishness in the extreme and if they had commonsense and morality they would call for a re-think of the Constitution to allow rational thinking to have a better chance of prevailing.

]]> By: Attack the System » Blog Archive » Updated News Digest January 31, 2010 http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2010/01/welcome-to-the-plutocracy/#comment-26518 Attack the System » Blog Archive » Updated News Digest January 31, 2010 Sat, 30 Jan 2010 13:19:11 +0000 http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=8089#comment-26518 [...] Welcome to the Plutocracy by John Medaille [...] [...] Welcome to the Plutocracy by John Medaille [...]

]]> By: Rob G http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2010/01/welcome-to-the-plutocracy/#comment-26412 Rob G Fri, 29 Jan 2010 12:07:49 +0000 http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=8089#comment-26412 It seems to be the case that unions have a measure of influence in the current administration out of all proportion to their size. The president of the SEIU (Andy Stearns?) practically lives at the White House, and it's hard to doubt the clout that the teachers' unions have in the Democratic party. It seems to be the case that unions have a measure of influence in the current administration out of all proportion to their size. The president of the SEIU (Andy Stearns?) practically lives at the White House, and it’s hard to doubt the clout that the teachers’ unions have in the Democratic party.

]]> By: Bruce Smith http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2010/01/welcome-to-the-plutocracy/#comment-26379 Bruce Smith Fri, 29 Jan 2010 01:10:27 +0000 http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=8089#comment-26379 Finally, Richard Werner asks the big taboo question which the Supreme Court judges want the financial corporations to stop the politicians asking and getting backing for change. That question is should credit creation and control be taken out of the hands of private bankers and their private Federal Reserve and returned to the hands of the tax payers through their government? Here is Werner’s article:- http://www.diis.dk/graphics/Publications/Andet2009/Should_creation_of_money_stay_in_private_hands.%20Richard%20Werner.pdf Finally, Richard Werner asks the big taboo question which the Supreme Court judges want the financial corporations to stop the politicians asking and getting backing for change. That question is should credit creation and control be taken out of the hands of private bankers and their private Federal Reserve and returned to the hands of the tax payers through their government? Here is Werner’s article:-

http://www.diis.dk/graphics/Publications/Andet2009/Should_creation_of_money_stay_in_private_hands.%20Richard%20Werner.pdf

]]> By: Bruce Smith http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2010/01/welcome-to-the-plutocracy/#comment-26375 Bruce Smith Fri, 29 Jan 2010 00:47:00 +0000 http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=8089#comment-26375 At a time when it is generally recognized that the ideology of market fundamentalism has been very bad for society’s health five Supreme Court judges decide as a last ditch stand to strengthen that ideology by increasing the political power of the corporations to resist any change. Here is an article by an economist Richard Werner who makes the case fairly reasonably I think that it was a foolish 1913 American government abdicating its responsibility to control the use of credit creation to a private Federal Reserve body that led to at least 50% of that credit creation being directed into the real estate and gasoline commodity bubbles that produced the recent Financial Crash:- http://www.qfinance.com/macroeconomic-issues-viewpoints/viewpoint-richard-a-werner This is not to mention the crash of 1929 and all the bubble generated recessions since 1913. Can a country that has just had a serious economic melt-down continue to allow a Constitutional set-up in which a Supreme Court dominated by five lawyers ( not economists even) deliberately set out to frustrate a country’s efforts to sort out its inept macroeconomic decision making arrangements? At a time when it is generally recognized that the ideology of market fundamentalism has been very bad for society’s health five Supreme Court judges decide as a last ditch stand to strengthen that ideology by increasing the political power of the corporations to resist any change. Here is an article by an economist Richard Werner who makes the case fairly reasonably I think that it was a foolish 1913 American government abdicating its responsibility to control the use of credit creation to a private Federal Reserve body that led to at least 50% of that credit creation being directed into the real estate and gasoline commodity bubbles that produced the recent Financial Crash:-

http://www.qfinance.com/macroeconomic-issues-viewpoints/viewpoint-richard-a-werner

This is not to mention the crash of 1929 and all the bubble generated recessions since 1913. Can a country that has just had a serious economic melt-down continue to allow a Constitutional set-up in which a Supreme Court dominated by five lawyers ( not economists even) deliberately set out to frustrate a country’s efforts to sort out its inept macroeconomic decision making arrangements?

]]> By: Siarlys Jenkins http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2010/01/welcome-to-the-plutocracy/#comment-26373 Siarlys Jenkins Fri, 29 Jan 2010 00:07:02 +0000 http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=8089#comment-26373 For the record, I am a fan of unions, but I am perfectly willing to leave union participation in elections to be through the usual COPE (Committee on Pollitical Action). These are funded by voluntary contributions from union members, earnestly solicited, but voluntary. I didn't contribute, last union I belonged to, because I didn't know what the national leadership would do with their share of the money. Among other things, they endorsed Hillary Clinton, when everyone in my local was voting for Obama, primary and general election, except one guy who voted for McCain. For the record, I am a fan of unions, but I am perfectly willing to leave union participation in elections to be through the usual COPE (Committee on Pollitical Action). These are funded by voluntary contributions from union members, earnestly solicited, but voluntary. I didn’t contribute, last union I belonged to, because I didn’t know what the national leadership would do with their share of the money. Among other things, they endorsed Hillary Clinton, when everyone in my local was voting for Obama, primary and general election, except one guy who voted for McCain.

]]> By: Haiti, State of Nature, and Birth Control | Conservative Heritage Times http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2010/01/welcome-to-the-plutocracy/#comment-26338 Haiti, State of Nature, and Birth Control | Conservative Heritage Times Thu, 28 Jan 2010 17:26:13 +0000 http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=8089#comment-26338 [...] all the current “solutions” to the problem in Haiti, result in either (1) long-term occupation of the country, (2) allowing a Camp of the Saints [...] [...] all the current “solutions” to the problem in Haiti, result in either (1) long-term occupation of the country, (2) allowing a Camp of the Saints [...]

]]> By: Albert http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2010/01/welcome-to-the-plutocracy/#comment-26336 Albert Thu, 28 Jan 2010 16:37:42 +0000 http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=8089#comment-26336 Tick. Tock. Tick. Tock. Tick. Tock. Tick. Tock.

]]> By: Rob G http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2010/01/welcome-to-the-plutocracy/#comment-26330 Rob G Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:00:36 +0000 http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=8089#comment-26330 It would be interesting to see if those conservatives who are currently defending this decision so vigorously would be doing so if it were unions rather than corporations whose activity was in question. Granted, the unions don't have the clout they once did, but if they did, and the shoe was on the other foot, I doubt you'd hear all this silly 'freedom of speech' rhetoric from the Right, so called. (For the record, I'm no fan of unions, and would prefer not to see either them or the corporations have this sort of influence.) It would be interesting to see if those conservatives who are currently defending this decision so vigorously would be doing so if it were unions rather than corporations whose activity was in question. Granted, the unions don’t have the clout they once did, but if they did, and the shoe was on the other foot, I doubt you’d hear all this silly ‘freedom of speech’ rhetoric from the Right, so called.

(For the record, I’m no fan of unions, and would prefer not to see either them or the corporations have this sort of influence.)

]]>