tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5357044.post5418329069197116125..comments2023-07-07T10:20:47.692-04:00Comments on A Portrait of the Dumbass as an Old Man: Capitalism 3.0Chris Heinzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00045972508852914723noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5357044.post-20487233335461058412019-04-13T19:42:11.415-04:002019-04-13T19:42:11.415-04:00"Can we ban lobbyists? Seems pretty anti-1st ..."Can we ban lobbyists? Seems pretty anti-1st amendment to me."<br />How to control lobbyists? Maybe, get the Fairness Doctrine back in place, and require lobbyists to follow it?Chris Heinzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00045972508852914723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5357044.post-78865827177768239402017-08-01T19:22:36.529-04:002017-08-01T19:22:36.529-04:00The American confusions are at least aggravated by...The American confusions are at least aggravated by corporate propaganda, and start from our history of causal appropriation of the frontier by private interests. One of the principles of libertarianism is basically: ‘First come gets served.’ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_cross-ownership_in_the_United_States<br /><br /><br />Strictly speaking, the government is trustee to public lands. They’re supposed to get fair price for their use and exploitation, but they don’t.<br /><br /><br />I think a UGI from these trusts is quite appropriate. ( Universal health Care also qualifies as a UGI. And I like that.) It would have to be carefully managed though, because the feedback loop is positive: Greater exploitation => greater income to the trusts => larger UGI. So, maybe you could change that by…? Have to think about it. It might not be large enough for everybody. Maybe just children. The problem is that raw resources, before value is added in the production of goods, are massively (and necessarily) underpriced.<br /><br /><br />This is part of the problem with the commons: It is necessarily underpriced, in order to drive the engine of society. This needs explanation: Suppose a barrel of oil contained $200 worth of energy. Would I buy it for $200? No. That would be useless to me. But if I can buy it for $60, and get $200 worth of energy, its worth $140. So the lower the price of the oil, the more valuable it is to me, the buyer. Along those lines, the cheaper we can exploit nature, the commons, the more we can drive our economy. And that is why we have put a price of $0 on the commons. (And in fact negative, in some cases when its exploitation is subsidized.) This does suggest a way to regulate growth rate in an economy... Only now, that we are pushing the limits of nature’s ability to sustain us, are we recognizing that there is a real price to the things that nature has, does, and will supply us. Only now, are we recognizing that there is a real debt that we owe and have to pay. Hopefully, it is not too high, and does not come due all at once.<br /><br /><br />A universal land tax, a la George? Adjustments would have to be made for agriculture.<br /><br /><br />The GOP, especially the Southern GOP, think they are justified in their cruelty.<br /><br /><br />Thanks again, Chris. Editing issues lead me to stop here.<br /><br />Charliegreghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08201906679062960215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5357044.post-32118493487926345822017-08-01T19:19:56.985-04:002017-08-01T19:19:56.985-04:00Hi Chris. Really like your reviews.
Comments: Ma...Hi Chris. Really like your reviews.<br /><br /><br />Comments: Malthus came up with a very ugly truth. But is is a truth. Due to diminishing returns, at a given GDP per capita, an increase in population requires an even greater increase in (cost of) input. And cost of disposal. (Remember Thermo? Global warming means decreasing efficiency.)<br /><br /><br />“Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children." Ancient Indian Proverb<br /><br /><br />Not only are corporations ‘persons,’ they are persons with more rights than people. What ever their crimes, they are mostly only subject to fines. Only the crime of bankruptcy earns them the possibility of capital punishment, and often it only earns them ‘reorganization.’<br /><br /><br />There is another pathology of Capitalism: The goal of the Capitalist is to maximize profit. If the capitalist can maximize profit by enriching society, he will enrich society. If the Capitalist can maximize profit by exploiting society, he will exploit society. The widening inequality is evidence that the Capitalist is now doing more of the latter.<br /><br /><br />Citizens United was a disaster. At a concert, everyone has the right to speak, but only the band has access to the amplifiers.<br /><br /><br />I think it was a Princeton study which showed that a Congressman’s electorate only got what they wanted it when his donors wanted it, too. His donors didn’t always get what they wanted, but they never got what they didn’t want.<br /><br /><br />I think anti-gerrymandering would be helpful. It would make representatives at least more responsive to their electorate. That and public financing. Not the cure, but a help. The problem with public financing is finding room for the fringe parties. Some formula… Also, our system reduces a political system which is at least two dimensional to one dimension. This is a problem which the Right is now exploiting.<br /><br /><br />I don’t know about banning lobbyists. Some sort of fairness doctrine, to guarantee some access to the rest of us? 1st Amendment should support that. Maybe a case could be made…<br /><br /><br />The Capitalist must externalize costs at every opportunity. Competitive pressures demand it. One of the functions of government is to mitigate competitive pressures which, by effectively sponsoring monopolies, it is doing in a counterproductive way. Currently, each corporation is in a race to exploit the commons before other corporations do it first. (Imagine a bunch of people, locked in an airtight room…)<br /><br /><br />One problem with evaluating the commons is that the pricing mechanism requires a market, and is disturbed when that market is not free. How do you compare one 350,000,000th of the nation’s forests to the price of a cheeseburger!?<br /><br /><br />I like the discussion in Chapter 6.<br /><br /><br />To Be Continuedgreghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08201906679062960215noreply@blogger.com