Sen. Harry Reid: American politics is currently just a war between billionaires (via Raw Story )
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) on Tuesday said that billionaires controlled American politics because of the lack of campaign finance laws. “I’m here because of the flood of dark money into our nation’s political system poises the greatest…
2 comments:
He's assuming that billionaires pick sides & stay there, versus gaming the system ... and alternately buying politicians from any prominent political party?
Most common law based countries like the united states arose from a tradition that the government awarded rights and privilege, such as land or business license to people according to their ability to help the government meet policy objectives. People that showed great loyalty or ability to government are well taken care of were given perpetual title rather than mere lifelong privelege. It is/was a two way relationship, however. A modern example might be Elon Musk, a billionaire, he works with NASA through his SpaceX to reduce the cost of space flight, and NASA shares expertise, launch facilities, access to the space station and money. Musk also helped spur the larger auto companies to make better, more efficient electric vehicles and the Dept. of Energy bailed out his car company when it was going bankrupt. Toyota's prius before Musk could go a few hundred yards on battery and Chevy's volt 30 miles. Musk's car could go a couple hundred for not much more money. He helped government, he helped the public. Obama's had him to the Whitehouse, Congress to testify. Corruption? Maybe. Maybe not. They are people not rigid imaginary perfect institutions but they are working in the public interest.
To call government support of something you or I don't like corruption or a war between billionaires is a bit of a stretch. I've abandoned the idea that government as a whole is corrupted but rather that government is balancing a set of priorities that aren't to maximize incomes or the well being or livelihood of citizens. Most government officials that I know are concerned with power, staying in power, eliminating threats to their power and then designing systems that solve their narrow policy objectives without paying much attention to the big picture or the system as a whole.
I read alot of these radical leftist articles that you post and they often claim something is 'right,' they can prove that one policy would produce a better outcome for themselves or the priority they've set for the public. They think the government should immediately abandon the current policy objectives and shift to their new policy. In fact there may be millions of people that simply don't agree or want the policy for a variety of reasons. Or government may simply be working toward another goal, another strategy that is of higher importance to itself or the public.
After all, the government is designed to take no action unless there is overwhelming support.
I see the problem less as corruption and more as a problem of historical tradition that began in medieval times when governments began awarding title to land, monopolies and the other special types of capital in perpetuity rather than for life to supporters. Imagine what the world would look like if the expectation was that everybody had to sell their assets upon death. If every corporate charter was only valid for a definite period for the shareholders to recoup their capital investment and a profit after which time the patents, copyrights, land or other special monopolies that enable advantage would be made public. The world would look very different. Piketty wouldn't have as much cachet.
Post a Comment