The Supreme Court decision today which allows corporations to contribute endlessly to political campaigns assures us that we will not live in a democracy. It assures that corporations will have a greater role in legislation against the will of the people. Who could outspend the likes of Halliburton who are actually flushed with billion-dollar-government contracts paid for by the aggregate of taxes of the American people?
The Dredd Scott decision by the Supreme Court over 100 years ago assured that slaves and their descendants would be considered property. Today, the Supreme Court assures that corporations are people too and have the right to essentially legislate. This decision assures us that lobbyists will have a greater role in influencing our politicians. I thought we were trying to go the exact opposite way to reduce campaign financing.
What does the Supreme Court want? Outright anarchy?
26 comments:
The obverse side of this nasty coin is the fact tht politicians and therefore politics and legislation can be bought. It in effect is another Dred Scott decision because it assures that congress people can be considered property.
DB
DB - You are right on with that assessment. I have written here and elsewhere that with the Dredd Scott decision humans were considered chattel. Today's decision considers corporations human. But your take that congresspersons will themselves become property is quite astute.
Do they want anarchy? Isn't pure democracy sort of a state of anarchy? I actually feel that this decision moves us away from anarchy AND democracy and more towards a oligarchical state. More money more power has always been the case, now more than ever. Makes me believe more than ever in the power of local and state government as well as the individual.
Yes, Nate, good points. But we surely don't want an oligarchy, eh? So, if an oligarchy is indeed what we have we need to work to change this too. It's good to see you.
The decision is surprising. It makes one want to hope in the basic moral fiber of the people. But also in the government in which we have which seems to operate on a pendulum swinging from one direction to the other throughout history but in the end still moving in the positive direction forward.
Next up for the Supreme Court: should corporations be allowed to (1) vote and (2) sit on a jury? I mean if we're going for consistency here...
At least I NOW understand what conservative pols and pundits have meant by "activist judges."
Yes, it's surprising indeed, Corrie. Regarding our forward motion, it feels to me that we have steeped into the abyss on a number of decisions in the last few decades, beginning with globalization, unfair trade and deficit spending with two wars and massive bailouts all championed by both parties. I hope I'm wrong but this feels like a serious decline.
Great, John!!! Your comment is thoughtful indeed.
If the President had been a Democrat from 2000-2008, the Supreme Court ruling would have been completely different. We would not have invaded Iraq.
I bet 911 would never have happened.
There is an enormous difference in the two political parties.
Zorro - I agree with you that ideologically there are big difference between the two parties. I'm not too sure about 911, though.
Wait until it dawns on the jingoists that the Supreme Court decision will allow them furrin' companies to spend money on US elections. Imagine if European corporations help elect a US senator. That will be fun to watch.
And the dreaded beat goes on, John! Yeah, policy can now be decided by multi-international conglomerates with foreign interests as if China doesn't already indirectly affect policy. Now countries have the power to directly influence presidential elections based on what is advantageous for them.
I doubt Al Gore would have dropped the ball on 911 as much as the Bush Adminstration did.
The Bush ignored the warnings the Clinton Administration passed on.
Also, if 911 had happened under gore, the Secreatry of defence would not have said on the night of 911,
"Lets go into Iraq. There is nothing to Bomb in Afghanistan"
This is what Donald Rumsfeld said on the night of 911.
Here is Volker and others take on Bernanke
"Alan Greenspan and Paul A. Volcker, Mr. Bernanke’s predecessors, one a Republican, the other a Democrat, both said over the weekend that it would be irresponsible to reject the Fed chairman.
“Ben has been through the fire,” Mr. Volcker said in an interview. “He’s much better qualified now than he was four years ago, before he went through that experience.”
What is the context of the Rumsfeld quote, Zorro? Did they actually think that AL Qaeda had something to do with 911? But I guess even if they had thought that proof is what's needed before going to war. As the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld should have known that.
Regarding Volker's comment, I'm not buying it. Both Bernanke and Geithner seems to be staying for political reasons. Both of these men have the support of both parties, even when the people are completely skeptical. If President Obama did not understand the damage of letting them go, as in campaign finance for both sides--excuse my deep skepticism-- along with perhaps some other things we don't know about, Volker would not be front and center as of late. But I hope it's not just for a show. By the way, I think Summers should go too! But, alas, somethings, so it appears, even the president cannot do much about. Sigh!
"Regarding Volker's comment, I'm not buying it."
Huh?
It what he said. Nothing is being sold here, so there is nothing to buy.
You can disagree with Volker or you can dig around to see if what I found is a misquote.
You speak with such authority, Zorro. :-)There are always reasons for everything. To accept anything at face value is foolish, especially in such a climate. This is my point. It's not about an either/or. There are always shades of gray. I trust this addresses your "huh."
In no way does it address my Huh?
There may or may not be shades of gray in this case.
BTW,
I know Talib has strong feelings about Bernake. Here is his quote from his web site.
"PLEASE NOTE THAT I AM ON MEDIA HIATUS UNTIL THE SUMMER OF 2010 (and perhaps, hopefully, permanently, if the book publishers give me a break). Bernanke's farce was not a cause, but a nauseating trigger: I have more important things to do than keep throwing pearls before swine."
How could anyone have any respect for Talib when he says something like this. If he is correct, then the most important thing he can do is get his ideas across to people who count. He is in a position to do this. I suspect he is actually very uncomfortable with uncertainty and the illogical - the uncertainty and illogic of human beings - he is more at home with equations than he is with humans (at least in a work environment) but won't admit it - what about 'never,never,never give up'
I actually think he is just lazy but doesn't want to fess up to it. So he put others down.
Best, Zorro! As you remain nameless, I shall not address your opinions of Taleb. Of course, you know what is said about opinions, anyway. Speaking of being lazy, who are you and what have you done? Let's talk about you. Shall we? Regarding my addressing your "huh" and not your mere rant about Nassim, why did you not address specifically my point beyond regurgitating what was said? For example, when we talk about monetary policy, which is represented by economists of all ilk, there ARE, many various shades.Best, Zorro! As you remain nameless, I shall not address your opinions of Taleb. Of course, you know what is said about opinions, anyway. Speaking of being lazy, who are you and what have you done? Let's talk about you. Shall we? Regarding my addressing your "huh" and not your mere rant about Nassim, why did you not address specifically my point beyond regurgitating what was said? For example, when we talk about monetary policy, which is represented by economists of all ilk, there ARE, many various shades.
I have no problem with being lazy - its just that Taleb seems lazy, but is blaming the fact that he doesn't want to do anything about the problem on others.
If he said he'd rather go to the beach or whatever, I'd
would not see anything wrong with it.
The shades of grey? I didn't address it because I
see no reason to infer Volker is presenting any shades of gray in the quote I found.
Here are some well expressed shades of gray from Krugman.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/25/opinion/25krugman.html?hp
Zorro - Here...let me try it this way. All economists, light right and center are dealing with numbers. These numbers represent their opinion which are written in language which is colored, shaded, if you will, to support a particular position or ideology. I did not buy Volker's statement about Bernanke.
The exact point about Volker's comment is that if the administration desires to support Bernanke, Volker may color it or shade it or some would say spin it in a way that is favorable. Hence his, in other words, "Although Bernanke fucked up royally for all of those years under Greenspan, he has learned his lesson. So, he deserves another go of it." I would not like to see him as the Fed Chairman.
Allow me to say one other thing with regards to discussion. It does not matter merely what you have seen, i.e., with any expression or idea, but what the other person is also trying to express. So, your comment seems lazy or simply disinterested. (By the way, I do have a problem with lazy people. I don't want them anywhere around me. Your words, however, since your have visited here do no strike me as lazy in the least.) In any regard, that does not seem the best way to have a dialogue. Regarding Nassim, I've made myself clear. Everybody has an opinion and you are most certainly entitled to yours.
Thanks for the Krugman article I will read it and may have something to say about it. I often appreciate his article. He has not been pleased with our president of late. By the way, Krugman is always rather straight forward without spin or shading. I will try to see what you mean here when you say "Here are some well expressed shades of gray from Krugman."
In Fooled By Randomness, Taleb has a passage that is extremely misleading.
He discusses a medical test that finds people with a given disease correctly 95% of the time.
Then he runs through an example where
1/1000 people have this disease and a large population of people are given a test. Then a person tests positive for the disease. What is the probability this person has the disease. It is 95%. But, the caveat is that it will misidentify 50 healthy people in every 1000 as having this disease.
Tests like this are widespread - mamograms operate on a principle like this. They are screening tests. They are used to screen people who when they fail the screening test should take a more expensive, more sensitive test. In fact, when the government recently recommended that women wait till 50 before getting a mammogram, they did that based on this sort of false positive problem. Taleb implies that the 50 healthy people would be given treatment. This is very unlikely and it shows that a person who knows much about one field may know very little about another. But Taleb uses this story to take a shot at medical Dr.s because MD's do not understand the fact that 50 out of 1000 people will be mis-identified.
The medical Drs are outside thier realm and Taleb, ironically shows his ignorance of medicine.
My point is Taleb's knowledge is very narrow (he'd have no idea how to navigate the FED) - it is a very powerful set of knowledge he is a master of, but much like Micheal Jordan found out when he decided to play professional baseball, no one is good at everything and most people are only very good at a few things. Taleb does not seem to be aware of this.
Zorro - What does your comment have to do with the post? I know that you are not a fan of Nassim and you seek to bring him up whenever possible. But that's getting pretty old to me. One thing that's for certain: Once you get going on Nassim or Tom it goes on and on. To be honest I haven't even read your last comment throughly because you are on that Nassim rant again that does not interest me. You may post as often as you'd like. Maybe someone else will engage you in discussion here. I'm cool with that. Later...
Oh, one other thing...what are you good at?
I'm not advertising myself as being good at anything.
Oh, brilliant, Zorro! The distinction is that you are writing on blogs and they are well-know authors. Your advertisement comes through your very words when you criticize others whether you like it or not or whether that is your intention or not.
Post a Comment