"Capitalism is Evil" - Michael Moore.

[Rolfe]

AND GIVE UP HIS HOLDINGS IN STOCK!

According to the man himself, he doesn't have holdings in stock. He keeps his savings in a bank account.

Not saying that invalidates your point, though.

Rolfe.

 

[Pardalis]

I bet Moore is going to make alot of money with that one.

 

[RandFan]

The trivial example is: it's pretty obvious that corporations effectively influence some decisions with their campaign contributions, lobbyists, PR bullcrap, bribes, astroturfing campaigns, etc, more than all the population combined. I'm sorry, but that's not what democracy was supposed to mean.

Leaving aside the notion that you are a bit careless in your use of the term "Democracy" (most modern liberal democracies are not pure democracies. Democracy has been variously described as tyranny of the majority. Not everyone in a Democracy always will or always can have equal influence. Charisma, intelligence, political ability, etc., will always set some people apart to have more influence. Democracy is simply an ideal. It can't guarantee outcome. It can't guarantee equality. I find nothing of significance from your example.

There are a lot of things that we'd scream bloody murder about, if the state did them, but when a mega-corporation does them... well, that's ok then.

Really? Boycotts. Protests. Lawsuits. Shirley you jest.

Another trivial example: the big "OMG teh politicians want to control the games" fight in the states is really only about what is the threshold where gory games should be labelled 18+ (AO) versus 17+ (M). Why is a year that important? Well, because of one single corporation: Wal Mart. It's the biggest retailer and it won't carry AO titles. Effectively one corporation is already sorta unilaterally regulating the games market, and everyone is apparently ok with that, even when they won't give their elected government the same right. Content is removed, games re-rated, cut-scenes reworked, just to please WalMart. And that's apparently ok, because OMG capitalism is sacro-sanct. It seems to me utterly illogical that people grant effectively the same regulation powers to a corporation we don't control, that they would instantly get paranoid if an ellected representative even hinted at getting.

Few corporations are sued more than wal-mart for their business practices.

But that is beside the point. You can boycott, you can protest, you can spend your money somewhere else. You probably have much more direct control every a business than a government.

I'm going to stop there. I've read through your post and I don't think you've made any significant arguments to support your conclusions. I think you need to think this through a bit more carefully. I think you have a point to make but I think you could do a better job of it.

 

[Edward Lark]

Problems of incentives

You probably have much more direct control every a business than a government.

Probably not, actually. While consumers acting collectively may have theoretically more power to influence corporations than do governments, the problem is that consumers are not equally incentivized to act in such collective manner as a corporation is incentivized to exert its control over the political/social system.

Each individual consumer sees his or her action as being nominally effective - I may choose to not shop at Walmart because I disagree with their labor practices, but the loss of revenue that my single-person boycott costs the corporation provides no observable influence. This is why boycotts, protests and the like are generally only effective in the short term - people need to see the effect of collective action to feel motivated to participate in such action.

The corporation, on the other hand, sees very direct and lucrative results from engaging in political influence peddling. Again, taking the example of Walmart - for very little economic cost it can influence sympathetic politicians to provide it favorable labor standards, tax breaks, zoning authorizations, complementary infrastructure (highway exits and such) and other socially-subsidized benefits that provide direct and large returns on the corporation's relatively meager investments.

Note that, as pointed out above, this is not necessarily "evil" or "good" - although the corporation's influence may have either positive or harmful effects. The corporation does not set out to do good or evil, and we should not expect it to under the current corporate system. The ONLY goal for a corporation, by design, is to maximize its profit. All actions are geared toward that goal, and it is morally neutral as to the effects that may result from the pursuit of that goal. If the corporation can maximize its profit from going "good," it will do so. If the corporation must do "evil," to maximize its profit, it will.

Because citizens are not properly incentivized to act collectively to influence corporate behavior on a case-by-case basis, if we want corporations to behave ethically we need to put government regulations and institutions in place that incentivize the corporation to engage in positive actions - and this specifically means making it more profitable for the corporation to do "good" than to do "evil."

 

[RandFan]

Probably not, actually. While consumers acting collectively may have theoretically more power to influence corporations than do governments, the problem is that consumers are not equally incentivized to act in such collective manner as a corporation is incentivized to exert its control over the political/social system.

I think you have a point but I think you make it a bit too strongly. I'm not anti-regulation. I think it would be ridiculous to assume that we could cure all corporate wrong simply through direct action by citizens. So clearly there is benifit in using government to enact regulations. That doesn't obviate that we do in fact have a good deal of influence over corporations.

Each individual consumer sees his or her action as being nominally effective - I may choose to not shop at Walmart because I disagree with their labor practices, but the loss of revenue that my single-person boycott costs the corporation provides no observable influence. This is why boycotts, protests and the like are generally only effective in the short term - people need to see the effect of collective action to feel motivated to participate in such action.

And the same could be said of individual attitudes and behavior as it relates to politics. Again, you have a point but I think you are putting to fine a line on it. I would also add that government regulations aren't always enacted in the best interest of citizens. Government is a rather blunt and unwieldy insturment and politicians use regulations for their own ends.

We do have power both through political and direct economic means. That we as a society are often lazy and lurch about in our attempt to improve the system doesn't obviate that. The truth is that we can and have used direct means to effect change (good and bad) and we have used the political process to effect change (good and bad).

The corporation, on the other hand, sees very direct and lucrative results from engaging in political influence peddling. Again, taking the example of Walmart - for very little economic cost it can influence sympathetic politicians to provide it favorable labor standards, tax breaks, zoning authorizations, complementary infrastructure (highway exits and such) and other socially-subsidized benefits that provide direct and large returns on the corporation's relatively meager investments.

But there's little logging in the Pacific Northwest. A higly lucrative endeavor it has been shut down nonetheless. There are many regulations and laws that corporations would like to end but they can't. Yes, they do influence politicians for their own self interests but let me make the point that the best interests of a corporation aren't always to the detriment of the individual. One of the problems I have with this corporations-are-only-guys-in-black-hats-and-politicians-are-guys-in-white-hats thinking is that it is shallow and overly simplistic. Corporations provide many benifits to their customers. I'd rather live in America than Somalia, in large part, because of American corporations.

That said, I like the Scandinavian model and wouldn't mind seeing America adopt additional regulations and even increase socialism to a degree.

Note that, as pointed out above, this is not necessarily "evil" or "good" - although the corporation's influence may have either positive or harmful effects. The corporation does not set out to do good or evil, and we should not expect it to under the current corporate system. The ONLY goal for a corporation, by design, is to maximize its profit. All actions are geared toward that goal, and it is morally neutral as to the effects that may result from the pursuit of that goal. If the corporation can maximize its profit from going "good," it will do so. If the corporation must do "evil," to maximize its profit, it will.

Agreed, but again, corporations don't and can't do anything that they would like to maximize profits. Conversly politicians don't always act in the best interest of constituents. And we don't always throw the bums out of office when we find that they have acted in their best interest and not ours.

Because citizens are not properly incentivized to act collectively to influence corporate behavior on a case-by-case basis, if we want corporations to behave ethically we need to put government regulations and institutions in place that incentivize the corporation to engage in positive actions - and this specifically means making it more profitable for the corporation to do "good" than to do "evil."

I don't think citizens are properly incentivized to act collectively to influence politicians on a case-by-case basis.

I think we need to be careful when it comes to regulations. They aren't always the best solution and often come with unintended consequences. Let's not forget that humans (AKA politicians) are the ones who write these regulations.

 

[Edward Lark]

I certainly do not subscribe to the corporate-black hat/government-white hat worldview. It all depends on who is running the government. Neither am I advocating an abandonment of individual/collective action. People should "vote with their wallets" as well as actually voting/participating in the political process.

The problem of uneven incentives exits in the political realm as well, but it is relatively easier to motivate citizens in the electoral forum for broad, lasting change than it is to motivate consumers for the same. Consumers may be incentivized to act against individual corporations or in their own personal interest, but if you want broad-based incentives that have ongoing influence sector- or industry-wide, then you will need to look to regulatory structures and institutions. The political realm allows you to leverage what may be short-term citizen interest/incentives to create long-lasting regulatory structures and incentives. (I also fully understand that this is a two-edged sword.)

As a Washingtonian in Midwest exile, I think your example of logging in the Pacific Northwest actually illustrates my point: Logging has been curtailed not because of consumer action, but rather citizen/political action. Citizen attitudes towards logging shifted away from their traditional pro-industry stance. This shift brought about citizen action and influence, the result of which was the passage of local and national logging regulations and restrictions that made logging less profitable. While some logging in the PNW is directly prohibited by regulation, the majority of the draw down is due to corporate decision-making based upon profitability - it was no longer profitable, so the corporations/logging companies stopped logging at the scale they had before.

The PNW example is also good, I think, because whether the regulatory outcomes have been "good" or "bad" is not necessarily a clear answer. As with most regulatory/political action, results are relatively mixed. While I don't think this topic is quite the hot-button it was in the late 80s/90s, the debate continues and regulatory adjustments are ongoing.

Politics is never a clean game, and regulatory action can certainly have negative or unintended effects. In the end, we probably agree more than we disagree. But when weighing the options and deciding where to focus resources and efforts, my call would be to generally come down on the political/regulatory side, rather than the individual action side, with an understanding that it need not necessarily be an either/or choice.

 

[plumjam]

I'm not saying Michael Moore is right or wrong or part right but if he really thinks capitalism is evil, why doesn't he give up his millions and his several corporations?

And stop publishing his books and producing his movies through firms?

AND GIVE UP HIS HOLDINGS IN STOCK!

You're right. Only poor people should be able to criticise economic systems.

 

[RandFan]

The problem of uneven incentives exits in the political realm as well, but it is relatively easier to motivate citizens in the electoral forum for broad, lasting change than it is to motivate consumers for the same. Consumers may be incentivized to act against individual corporations or in their own personal interest, but if you want broad-based incentives that have ongoing influence sector- or industry-wide, then you will need to look to regulatory structures and institutions. The political realm allows you to leverage what may be short-term citizen interest/incentives to create long-lasting regulatory structures and incentives. (I also fully understand that this is a two-edged sword.)

a.) I think you are making a much stronger case than exists and b.) you are largely just asserting your premises.

But that's fine. So long as we both understand that this is but mere opinion. God forbid we don't have those.

As a Washingtonian in Midwest exile, I think your example of logging in the Pacific Northwest actually illustrates my point: Logging has been curtailed not because of consumer action, but rather citizen/political action.

Ah, but I was responding to your point about peddling influence. You need to come to a better determination as to what your point is.

Politics is never a clean game, and regulatory action can certainly have negative or unintended effects. In the end, we probably agree more than we disagree. But when weighing the options and deciding where to focus resources and efforts, my call would be to generally come down on the political/regulatory side, rather than the individual action side, with an understanding that it need not necessarily be an either/or choice.

I think at the end of the day there are simply different means to achieve outcomes and there is no single best way. Some times the direct financial approach works and sometimes regulation works. I think regulation is often abused and it is the result of lazy consumers.

 

[HansMustermann]

You're right. Only poor people should be able to criticise economic systems.

Of course, then it would be called "sour grapes"

 

[Edward Lark]

Lazy Consumers . . .

I think at the end of the day there are simply different means to achieve outcomes and there is no single best way. Some times the direct financial approach works and sometimes regulation works.

I think I was clear above that I don't disagree. Where we differ appears to be where we would place the focus.

I think regulation is often abused and it is the result of lazy consumers.

But consumers are lazy, and with short attention spans to boot. Given this, my argument - my educated opinion - is that if you want to effect long-lasting change you have to look to leveraging consumer interest through citizen action to put in place regulatory and/or institutional mechanisms.

If you do it right, hopefully you get institutions that not only perpetuate specific regulations that advance your favored outcomes, but that work to influence later public opinion and further consumer/citizen action. For example, citizen interest in environmental concerns lead to the creation of the EPA. The EPA passed specific regulations, but it also provides an institutional point of influence on the ongoing debate. This influence is why interest groups on all sides of the debate are constantly working to control, promote and/or dismantle the institution.

 

[INRM]

I think Moore's message is a bit extreme.

Yes, unregulated capitalism can be extremely bad, but that's why there are supposed to be reasonable regulations

 

[MysteryMammal]

I'm of the opinion that Capitalism is a tool. Tools are not "good" or "evil". Take a hammer, for instance. I can use it to build a shelf, or I could use it to bash someone's skull in. The "evil" isn't in the tool, it's all in the user.

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

According to the man himself, he doesn't have holdings in stock. He keeps his savings in a bank account.

Not saying that invalidates your point, though.

Rolfe.

Yeah, I know that he has said so in a book of his.

According to this book, he does own several stocks:

http://www.amazon.com/Do-As-Say-Not-Hypocrisy/dp/0385513496

Though I'd take the research in it with a grain of salt, as this author also says some things about Al Franken that just aren't true and skews some facts about the Clintons. Very well written book, though. I'd actually recommend it.

 

[RandFan]

But consumers are lazy, and with short attention spans to boot.

But citizens are lazy and with short attention spans to boot. They also would like long term fixes that can lead to long term unintended consequences.

Given this, my argument - my educated opinion - is that if you want to effect long-lasting change you have to look to leveraging consumer interest through citizen action to put in place regulatory and/or institutional mechanisms. [

My educated opinion is that it's best to not elevate one method over the other. Given the incompetence of elected officials and the serious and long term consequences of enacting regulation to solve issues I wouldn't be quick to see regulation as a panacea.

I agree with you that we are not that far off in our assessment but I think you gloss over the negative aspects of regulation.

If you do it right, hopefully you get institutions that not only perpetuate specific regulations that advance your favored outcomes, but that work to influence later public opinion and further consumer/citizen action. For example, citizen interest in environmental concerns lead to the creation of the EPA. The EPA passed specific regulations, but it also provides an institutional point of influence on the ongoing debate. This influence is why interest groups on all sides of the debate are constantly working to control, promote and/or dismantle the institution.

Yep, the devil is in the details alright. In more ways than one.

 

[Region Rat]

The trivial example is: it's pretty obvious that corporations effectively influence some decisions with their campaign contributions, lobbyists, PR bullcrap, bribes, astroturfing campaigns, etc, more than all the population combined. I'm sorry, but that's not what democracy was supposed to mean.

I feel I need to jump in here to say that the influencing you are talking about is most definately a two way street. If the corporations, lobbyists, and the like did not get results from their contributions, campaigns (and bribes), they would find better ways to spend their money. I hold the politicians more responsible for falling under the influence of the dough than I do for the corporations being what they are. If the politicians truly represented their constituencies, and could make it clear to them that they are being represented according to their wishes, no amount of corporate action should affect their reelection in their district. When politicians look no farther than what it takes to get the cash to get reelected, no matter what the means and no matter what the source, representation is lost. That is not what democracy was supposed to be.

 

[RandFan]

I feel I need to jump in here to say that the influencing you are talking about is most definately a two way street. If the corporations, lobbyists, and the like did not get results from their contributions, campaigns (and bribes), they would find better ways to spend their money. I hold the politicians more responsible for falling under the influence of the dough than I do for the corporations being what they are. If the politicians truly represented their constituencies, and could make it clear to them that they are being represented according to their wishes, no amount of corporate action should affect their reelection in their district. When politicians look no farther than what it takes to get the cash to get reelected, no matter what the means and no matter what the source, representation is lost. That is not what democracy was supposed to be.

I hate to sound like a broken record but I think the point important.

You mean "representative Democracy". You might accuse me of being pedantic but come one, we are arguing over the meaning of terms.

 

[Region Rat]

I hate to sound like a broken record but I think the point important.

You mean "representative Democracy". You might accuse me of being pedantic but come one, we are arguing over the meaning of terms.

I know (and concede that you have no way of knowing that). I was repeating the last line of his previous post to make my point.

My daughter once asked me how a broken record could make a sound.

 

[RandFan]

I know (and concede that you have no way of knowing that). I was repeating the last line of his previous post to make my point.

My daughter once asked me how a broken record could make a sound.

Only if it is struck by a tree falling in the forrest.

 

[jmclennan]

To paraphrase Sam Harris in "The End of Faith", In many countries, people if given the choice would vote for their own subjugation.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

You're right. Only poor people should be able to criticise economic systems.

And only people who have done as much as Mother Theresa can criticise her...

Don't think I've forgotten your past arguments plum.