dagblog - Comments for "Corporate Power and American Democracy"

Should have guessed it would

EmmaZahn — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 01:46:42 +0000

In reply to I'm judging him be events in

Should have guessed it would be Zinn revisionist history. Deliberate distortion and misinformation. Note from the DeLong piece: "Carnegie was a mass of contradictions--as if he was not one but three or four different people at once." Yes, the Homestead strike was quashed by Carnegie's associate Frick in a bloody battle but again, as DeLong notes, "[Carnegie] was a man of great powers, of great flaws, of great benevolence, and great ruthlessness."

He was a remarkable self-made man, second only to Ben Franklin in sheer billance. He deserves better than to be maligned by a quasi-historiian with a political agenda.

It's not even so much the

Peter Schwartz — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 00:33:25 +0000

In reply to The issue of tycoon

It's not even so much the "bias of the rich." It's the bias of the private giver regardless of wealth. You give money to things YOU approve of. Public support represents some sort of collective debate and recognition that "this" is important to the community as a whole, not just to certain individuals.

I'm a little tired now, but

Peter Schwartz — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 20:44:34 +0000

In reply to But then you begin to see

I'm a little tired now, but wanted to respond.

I see the issue a few degrees off from you, I think.

I think you could probably think of Gates as putting his money where his beliefs are. Yes, he's profiting, but also believes in the beneficence of GE rice. So he supports it with his money. It's possible that he's just greedy, but I think it's more likely that he "believes in" golden rice.

If you had a bunch of money--hell, just think of the money you DO have to give away--you'd give it away to causes you believed in. In essence, that's what Gates is doing.

So to me the issue is: private philanthropy vs government creating a more just society. Conservatives will argue that they are just as compassionate as liberals--maybe more so--but they don't want to be forced, through taxation, to spend their money on things they don't approve of. Like abortion or Planned Parenthood, etc.

And they frequently point to people like Gates to prove their point. "Look at all the good he's doing. Voluntarily. If you think the government is the best way to address these needs, why don't you over-pay your taxes, etc."

The problem with turning over social problems to the private philanthropy sector to solve is that these private individuals then get to decide which approach to say, education, will get funding, and which approaches won't. There is no community debating the issues: Bill Gates simply gets to decide which educators and schools are going to get HIS money.

So the question might be: Is it better for society and for all the problems society faces to allow some individuals to accumulate massive amounts of money and then be in a position to give away billions as they see fit?

Or is it better for society to put policies in place that tend toward a more equal distribution of income and thus a more equal say, perhaps, in how society and its institutions run?

Some would argue that without people like Gates or Carnegie we simply wouldn't have the advances that have benefited millions and millions of people. But that's a discussion for another day.

Glad he didn't Win The

Michael Maiello — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 17:14:38 +0000

In reply to James I actually wrote a few

Glad he didn't Win The Future!

James I actually wrote a few

Elusive Trope — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 16:19:58 +0000

In reply to Ah, thanks. I guess a lot

James I actually wrote a few books in his day, including The True Law of Free Monarchies; or, The Reciprocal and Mutual Duty Betwixt a Free King and His Natural Subjects. His take on his position says it all:

As there is not a thing so necessary to be known by the people of any land, next the knowledge of their God, as the right knowledge of their allegiance according to the form of government established among them, especially in a monarchy (which form of government, as resembling the divinity, approacheth nearest to perfection, as all the learned and wise men from the beginning have agreed upon, unity being the perfection of all things), so hath the ignorance and (which is worse) the seduced opinion of the multitude, blinded by them who think themselves able to teach and instruct the ignorants, procured the wrack and overthrow of sundry flourishing commonwealths and heaped heavy calamities threatening utter destruction upon others. * * *

Kings are called gods by the prophetical King David because they sit upon God his throne in the earth and have the count of their administration to give unto him. Their office is "to minister justice and judgment to the people," as the same David saith; "to advance the good and punish the evil," as he likewise saith; "to establish good laws to his people and procure obedience to the same," divers good kings of Judah did; "to procure the peace of the people," as the same David saith.

Ah, thanks. I guess a lot

Michael Maiello — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 15:47:27 +0000

In reply to Had to look it up, but it

Ah, thanks. I guess a lot depended on the consent of the King back then.

Had to look it up, but it

Elusive Trope — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 15:46:26 +0000

In reply to Thanks! Makes a lot of

Had to look it up, but it appears that royal charters are implicitly perpetual, although there are ways that the powers and rights they grant can be appealed.

I think the reason

Peter Schwartz — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 15:35:37 +0000

In reply to Actually, I was not arguing

I think the reason "motivation" matters--even if it is hard to get at--is that it gives us a clue as to how someone may act in the future. The near future.

We see this conundrum in our current politics a lot...

For example, we often see one party opposing a particular program or piece of legislation that it might otherwise support simply BECAUSE it is coming from the "other side."

A lot of non-political people or "independents" find this to be irritating and irrational partisanship. "You're not thinking independently; you're only for your own team," they say.

And sometimes this opposition is just a power grab by one side which doesn't care about the substance of a proposal, but only about gaining or protecting its own power.

But the reasonable element in this opposition is the justified fear that said program or piece of legislation is just a stepping stone to much worse things the proposers INTEND to do after. A little bit like steaming the frog. So gauging motivation can be important.

On the other hand, if you trust the proposer's motivation, then you might think through and support the proposed legislation on its own merits. Ideally, you don't want reject good ideas just because they come from the opposition.

There's also some question of

Michael Maiello — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 14:51:42 +0000

In reply to The glories of the Vitamin A

There's also some question of motive. Monsanto has granted patent waivers for these crops, which, according to this presentation from the GR Humanitarian Board, which runs Goldenrice.org will be commercially released this year or next. Sounds like the patent waivers are a loss leader. If this works and it becomes a dominant price, the waivers will go away and the farmers will find themselves with big fat bills from Monsanto.

We've danced this dance before.

The glories of the Vitamin A

we are stardust — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 14:35:56 +0000

In reply to Also if you visit the site,

The glories of the Vitamin A in golden rice have not been proven; there are questions about how bio-available it is, and even if all of it were, the consumption would have to be off the charts. How much more effiicient to give out Vitamin A capsules. This site explains some it. Yup; liberals were into solutions, but they need to be sustainable solutions that have been proven to not have adverse effects on the biosphere and farming sustainability and crop diversity in case there are cascade effects only hinted at now.