tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4892410341630086121.post5970518747313461309..comments2023-10-23T09:00:28.759-07:00Comments on Culture World 21-C: Lie to me or I won't vote for youRlmoore2647@gmail.comhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05639371903932229530noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4892410341630086121.post-9879079653070521992012-09-08T07:19:25.726-07:002012-09-08T07:19:25.726-07:00On the accusation of lack of originality, I plead ...On the accusation of lack of originality, I plead guilty. <br /><br />But I'm going to disagree with much of the rest of what you say. As the Simpsons analogy suggests, the benefits that come from the government and go to those with money (corporations and individuals), do not amount to a simple monetary transfer of wealth. If government policy opposes or undermines unions, if it opposes the raising of the minimum wage, if it facilitates rip-offs of customers (like those many of us have experienced from banks), if it allows for reckless pollution of the environment as a profit-boosting strategy (which may then only be remedied by taxpayer-funded cleanups), etc., then government policy is facilitating the transfer wealth into the hands of those whose money manages to buy influence. This is the tip of the iceberg. There are subsidies to agribusiness, oil companies, and so on that continue the same story.<br /><br />I should add that I am not fundamentally anti-business. I come from a family of businessmen whose work and honesty I greatly admire. If only the oil, banking and other corporate interests were as honest and publicly spirited as my Dear Dad (for example) always was, we wouldn't have seen the massive transfer of wealth to the super-rich that America has experienced since 1980. Those super-rich are the clients that government policy has been benefiting.<br /><br /><br />Rlmoore2647@gmail.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05639371903932229530noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4892410341630086121.post-60796232649839696742012-09-07T13:23:24.975-07:002012-09-07T13:23:24.975-07:00Ok, the hypothesis we get. It's not original,...Ok, the hypothesis we get. It's not original, but hey, using the Simpsons made the exposition colorful.<br /><br />Thing is, it reminds me of HL Mencken's quip that "to every human suffering there is a solution, simple, easy and wrong". It is easy to look at the political class as a group and say that if they don't produce the results that (I, we, a majority) want it must be because they are secretly in collusion with people seeking to harm us.<br /><br /><br />A thought exercise - <br /><br />If it is true that politicians are mostly practicing clientism, then which clients are actually winning?<br /><br />A logical way would be to follow the classic post-modern / Oliver Stone approach: when asking who benefits - follow the money.<br /><br />Turns out, not a whole lot of money goes to ExxonMobil or to Solyndra for that matter. 60% of Federal outlays go to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, all of which (according to Bill Clinton's convention speech) disproportionately go to people over 62. That is only a part of the story, because spending at the local level is even more tilted in favor of old people and that is before we start considering age discrimination in tax preferences (like the extra personal exemptions for people 65 and over, and the property tax rebats for retirees). These tax expenditures mean that government overwhelmingly exists to transfer money to retirees. Now, they are certainly a special interest, but they are not a large corporation.<br /><br />They do have lobbyists, and spend quite alot of time lobbying personally. They also tend to vote. All of which you might consider holding politicians "accountable" - indeed you might even say that a big transfer state is exactly what "the people" want. Not sure it is good for them, but still.<br /><br />Perhaps the real reason we are so disappointed with our politicians is that government is poorly suited to the functions for which we try to use it. Much as a hammer is great at pounding nails but makes a lousy spoon, maybe we shouldn't try and have government do all the things we expect it to do. <br /><br />Of course, politicians who say, sorry, we don't fix those kinds of problems, tend not not get elected. People want "problem solvers" which is to say, they don't want deep strategy, they want people who respond to their concerns. Telling them they are on their own doesn't fit the bill. In short, maybe the goal should be to have fewer clients and less scope, rather than to suggest that the solution is to change the clients.<br /><br />Final thought exercise - postmodernist critique also argues that observations say at least as much about the observer as the observed. If lefties slavish devotion to clients every time they look across the aisle, how likely is it that this is because that is how they themselves behave?Strategic Investorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06847403858456772158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4892410341630086121.post-681351658276734822010-09-06T17:42:09.084-07:002010-09-06T17:42:09.084-07:00I agree with 99% of this essay but I must say that...I agree with 99% of this essay but I must say that it is somewhat disrespectful to the 3 Stooges that they were compared to American voters. Just as comparing George Bush to Alfred E. Neuman was disrespectful to Mr. Neuman.hustlenflohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10662782378490757611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4892410341630086121.post-65373871718327782742010-09-06T13:17:55.571-07:002010-09-06T13:17:55.571-07:00This is so sad, but so true. I was just having a d...This is so sad, but so true. I was just having a discussion about the two party system and the way they play people against one another by focusing on sound clip schisms. Did you see they're coming out with a sequel to that movie Wall Street? We need to stop ceding power to the greedy, but how can we when we as a people seem to have taken the slogan "greed is good" to heart...loved the post, always good to illustrate a concept with a clever Simpsons reference : )Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4892410341630086121.post-61113692907595841852010-09-05T06:26:04.676-07:002010-09-05T06:26:04.676-07:00Good piece of edutainment! But seriously, as long...Good piece of edutainment! But seriously, as long as money intersects politics, our government (or any government, for that matter) will continue to be the proxy for the oligarchs. In that case, we should perhaps vote "the cute one" - Larry, Moe, and Curly, or ourselves (I mean you, Vance and me - remember we were once approvingly elevated to "The Three Stooges" in our "Us and Them" class?) ;-)Li Weihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16116989008484683391noreply@blogger.com