1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Attention fans of The Wire -- Read this David Simon interview

Discussion in 'Anything goes' started by Double Down, Dec 1, 2006.

  1. JR

    JR Well-Known Member

    No, Wingman, what I'm saying is that corporations have hijacked social policy and are setting the agenda for the direction our society is taking.

    It's not about the "market", it's about businesses deciding, for example, that "right to work" legislation is in THEIR interests so they lobby governments to pass legislation that effectively neuters unions. And governments cave in to the business special interest groups.

    Business is a fundamental part of any society but it shouldn't be calling the shots particularly when their interests conflict with what I can only call the common good. I know that's an antiquated, slightly slopply liberal thought in the eyes of the righties, but it's still a legitimate thought.
     
  2. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    I didn't think we are in huge disagreement. I honestly don't think there is much about what I am saying to disagree with, although I will listen to any reasonable argument.

    What you are saying is wrong, though. Corruption isn't an intrinsic part of capitalism--no more than it is an intrinsic part of any other economic system. If anything, capitalistic societies have had a tendency to suffer from less corruption than socialistic or feudalistic or any other type of economic system that has ever existed. The reason is quite simple. Capitalism doesn't try to suppress human nature. It is human nature to be motivated to do things that reward you. And capitalism has proven that by letting people pursue those rewards, the greatest collective good is achieved--all kinds of technological and medical advances that benefit humanity have been borne from one guy trying to get his rewards. It's hard for some people to accept, but the collective good is usually served best by rewarding individuality. And capitalism does that better than any other economic system.

    There are two problem: human nature doesn't automatically stop at the societal boundaries we want to set to prevent anarchy. There is always someone who will try to skirt the rules of fair play we've established (equality of opportunity; the markets have to remain free without barriers to entry) in order to reap greater rewards. And that is why we need laws. The second problem is that capitalism has proven that it can't allocate public goods that as a society we've decided we need. We all benefit from a police force or good roads. There is no incentive for Citizen A to pitch in the money to provide those things, though. If everyone else is willing to pay for it, why should I? It'll still be provided and I'll still benefit. Of if everyone else isn't paying for it, he says, "Why should I pay, when everyone else will benefit without paying their share?" The end result is that there are certain things we collectively benefit from that free markets can't provide. And we need government (laws) to ensure that everyone pitches in to pay for those things.

    But government arbitration of the rules and government allocation of public goods, is at odds with the human nature that makes capitalism work in the first place. An elected official, or a police chief or a government bureaucrat is no different than anyone else. They are chasing a self-motivated carrot. So the bureaucrat is going to create a bigger bureaucracy which insures his job. And government attracts way too many people with the most corrupt moral compasses. They're not stupid. They have no qualms about robbing and stealing to get what they want, and as an elected official, they are given more power and free reign (there is no government above them to govern them) to do it.

    It's a double-edged sword without a perfect solution. Capitalism is what creates the most prosperity. But our need to regulate ourselves to make capitalism work screws that up to some degree. Given that, I certainly wouldn't argue for anarchy--no regulation. But I wouldn't argue for more government (or collective) control of the world. The Wire bears out what I am saying. The elected officials, the police, the schools, are at the root of the problems. And our problems are worse than they need to be, because those institutions are bigger than they should be.
     
  3. JR

    JR Well-Known Member

    Ragu, this is turning into a post grad thesis debate. :)

    First of all, as I've said before, your Platonic theory of capitalism doesn't exist. Corruption is embedded in capitalism --certainly to a lesser degree than other economic models--for one simple reason. If capitalism works by virtue of self-interest then it's logical to assume that people will do anything to further those interests, including lobbying for tax breaks, arguing for tariffs and duties that protect their industry or, in the case of companies like Wal-Mart, pressuring governments to reduce those barriers to exploit opportunities that increase their profitability i.e. taking advantage of Third World labour.

    And in a fair and democratic society the goals of capitalism have to be weighed against the common good. That's why we have labour, workplace safety, and minimum wage laws: to protect people against the self interest of business.

    And Ragu, you know I respect you but your statement that "government attracts way too many people with the most corrupt moral compasses" is offensive. So does business.
     
  4. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Not even sure how to respond.

    Government creates the problems you're railing against. It doesn't alleviate them.

    You mentioned the minimum wage. Great example. It's been proven over and over again, that the minimum wage costs jobs. When the price of labor rises, businesses buy less of it. And demand for low-skilled, low-paying labor is fairly elastic, so the effect is pronounced. This is inarguable.

    The minimum wage actually has two crappy effects: It freezes out low-skilled adults in favor of part-time teenagers by limiting the number of jobs available (and employers prefer the teens who don't expect full-time hours), and it causes some students who rely on those jobs to help finance their educations, to spend less time in school and more time working.

    Fuck with the free and open market for labor, and people end up worse off. That's the perfect example.

    Not sure what I said that is offensive. There is a big difference between those engaged in business and those engaged in beurocratic government nonsense. In a free and open market, those who produce something that people want or need are rewarded. Those who have nothing to offer aren't. You complain about businesses "pressuring governments to reduce those barriers to exploit opportunities that increase their profitability..."

    And I say, "ding ding ding!" We have a winner. Government shouldn't even be involved. It shouldn't even have its hand in the equation, so business shouldn't have to be "pressuring government." Government shouldn't be putting up barriers to free markets (which almost always exist for corrupt reasons). And there shouldn't be any reason for Wal-Mart (or anyone else) to have to employ lobbyists to get government officials to do random things that benefit its business. That WHOLE PROCESS screws things up, creates inefficiencies and makes us worse off.

    In a system full of "lobbyists" and "government do-gooders (or worse, corrupt politicians)" and "those messing with free markets for nebulous reasons" (tariffs, protectionist taxes), you create massive problems.
     
  5. PeteyPirate

    PeteyPirate Guest

    Is the season finale next week or the week after?
     
  6. JR

    JR Well-Known Member

    Jesus Christ, what world are you living in?

    Governments have been involved in business ventures since Christopher Columbus set sail for the New World or since the Hudson's Bay Company was given their charter.

    I assume you know about the Hudson's Bay Company --the oldest corporation in North America. Those people who basically set the standard for capitalism in North America did so at the behest of the British government.

    Lewis and Clark were amateurs compared to what Radisson and Groseilliers accomplished in setting the stage for establishing trading posts all throughout North America.

    Canada wouldn't exist without the partnership of the then government of Canada under Sir. John A. MacDonald and business partners who forged a railway to tie the country together.

    And quite frankly, your incessant talk about a "free and open market" is nonsense. It's never existed.

    And your comment that "There is a big difference between those engaged in business and those engaged in beurocratic government nonsense" is not just offensive, it's stupid.

    People working in the public sector contribute as much to our world than someone churning out widgets for Wal-Mart.

    You need to chuck your Ayn Rand/Milton Friedman texts and actually learn something about the real world.

    Oh, and the only groups who have proven minimum wage laws don't work are those who don't want them to. Before you know it, you'll be arguing for child labour.

    And as for your statement that "Government shouldn't be putting up barriers to free markets" well, all I can say is: they have since time immemorial and they will continue to do so. Railing against it is kinda pointless.
     
  7. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    I have right on my side. So call me "stupid" all you want. Ayn Rand and Milton Freidman did have it right. Just because we have always had bungling government bureaucracies creating problems and limiting our overall potential, doesn't mean that I need to get in tune with the "real world." What I wish for is a better world. The U.S. is the most prosperous country in the world because we have the most democratic and most free markets in the world. It doesn't mean we sometimes fuck that up. When the U.S. falls short of its potential is when our democratic government (and other institutions) finds ways to force undemocratic values--rigged contracts, lobbyists lining politicians pockets, elected officials creating barriers to markets and free trade, etc. We also have lots of people who screw around with both of those things (democracy and free markets), either in the name of doing good (good motives, but too stupid to understand that the invisible hand works better than their plodding, misguided oven mitts) or because of corrupt motives (Clay Davis, Royce Clayton, Rawls, etc. in The Wire).

    In the U.S., sugar costs 10 X what it costs anywhere else in the world. The Financial Page in the New Yorker covered this a few weeks ago. Barrack Obama, for example has his pockets lined by lobbyists. He's their lackey. As a result, we have tariffs that make it economically cost prohibitive to use sugar in most food goods, even though it is a cheap-as-hell commodity in the rest of the world. And we have price controls that force artificially high prices on us, locking in a price for domestic sugar growers, who in turn can limit the size of their crop and make more from it than they would if they had to compete in a fair marketplace. This is done for many reasons, but it's in large part to protect the corn industry (why corn syrup is in foods instead of sugar; why corn ethanol is used instead of sugar ethanol).

    The problems from this clumsy regulation, as they typically do, spiral out to create massive problems. Ethanol made from sugar burns more efficiently and cheaply than corn-based ethanol. It's a big component of gasoline in Latin America, for example, and brings the cost per gallon down below what we pay in the U.S. It is impossible to use sugar-based ethanol in the U.S., though, because the cost of sugar is kept so artificially high here because of government plodding, and the massive amounts of money that change hands between these businesses and the amoral government officials who are lining their pockets or their reelection war chests.

    THIS IS WHAT GOVERNMENT DOES. And the end result is that gas costs more than it needs to, and the average person gets hit in his pocket book. It hurts the economy, by taking discretionary income that could be used to benefit other areas. And why does it happen? Because politicians aren't forced to be accountable to the marketplace -- they aren't made successful by having to produce things that are in demand by anyone. They profit by staying in power (which requires raising tons of money, often under shady circumstances) and taking kickbacks from lobbyists from various industries looking to get them to screw around with the marketplace. In turn they create all kinds of walls and barriers and overregulation that throws the marketplace out of kilter. And it's all at the expense of the greater good.

    I don't doubt your motives. You see inequities in the world and you think your clumsy social maneuvering can fix it. And I say that efforts by people like you have screwed things up to create most of the massive problems we face--up over and over again. That is a major lesson of the Wire. Let government and its bureaucracies get its hand in and they find ways to do the wrong thing, waste money, fall prey to corruption and create big problems--see the mayor, city hall, the police (COMSTAT), the schools, the docks and what little we have seen of the condo development business world in that series.

    You go on and on about big, bad evil Wall-Mart. Wall-Mart accounted for 13 percent of the productivity gains in the U.S. in the second half of the 1990s. It has probably single-handedly kept inflation low in this country, by bringing about the lower prices that come with those productivity gains. Yet, you characterize them as the big, bad wolf who exploit foreign and domestic labor. Even assuming that they cost more U.S. jobs than they create (and this is debatable), putting in protectionist laws that thwart progress--greater productivity due to technological gains (which is what Wall-Mart has REALLY done) to preserve dinosaur jobs makes us all worse off in the end.

    Skilled weavers were made irrelevant by the power loom long ago. Insisting that we still employ those skilled weavers at the expensive of the greater productivity the power loom offered would have been ludicrous. And it would have kept the standard of living backward ass. It would have prevented progress. Yet that is what you consistently are arguing for on here. Technological advances and gains in productivity better our standard of living and allow the superfluous workforce to focus its efforts on other things, creating yet more technological advances and productive gains that benefit us all.

    I have history on my side on all of this, as well as anyone who has ever given serious thought to applied economics and how it has borne itself out in the real world.
     
  8. JR

    JR Well-Known Member

    Ayn Rand is to economics what Superman is to literature.

    If it gets you through the day, fine but most people grow out of that ham-fisted nonsense about the time they pop their last zit.

    And I'm always a little leary about anyone who claims they have "right" or "history" on their side while equating government with "evil" and those who work in government as "amoral".
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page