" I think what it really shows is the disaster that ensues when every individual acts only in his/her own self-interests"
I would have to disagree with your fatalism with our system. People able to act in their own self-interest is precisely what makes the whole system work. If its in our interest to save, we save. To move we move, to buy we buy, to vote we vote, to work, we work and so on. The bigger problem I see is a growing population of people who have no skin in the game and a disincentive to contribute.
@dagosa, I think you’re right about that as I can’t recall what I had for breakfast.
@Mountain, it’s always surprising to me that you seem to reserve the abuse of power for political actors only. It’s as if you don’t think that economics has anything at all to do with raw asymmetries of power. I actually think there is very little independent power in the political system, and that most of the actual power in the world is held by the large pools of capital. You seem to sort of imply that, but somehow having politics influenced by economic power only translates into advantage for political actors? You don’t like the pooled capital influencing the state, but in the end you lay it all on the state, not on the capital. I’m having a hard time sorting that out.
In any case, I just have no special place reserved for the abuse of political or economic power. I just loathe concentrated power. That game of the abuse of power is played by both large political and economic actors.
On the point of pooled capital, I get that, but that’s why I said I liked the old charter system better. It was not unlimited, but subject to review. If you do go back to the emergence of the corporate form in the US you will find very widespread resistance to incorporation outside of the charter system - and it wasn’t from “commies and liberals” or something. It was very widespread and included vast portions of the business community. People feared the concentration of power that came with incorporation by registration and the lack of review.
The early US fear of power wasn’t just the fear of concentrated political power, though that is now how it is usually spun (mostly in a taken-for-granted kind of way). It was a fear of any kind of concentration of power. We have lost that healthy fear and many do have this strange notion that the economy is some kind of “power-free” zone (governed as it is by the myths of the economists that it’s all just free decision-making), while the polity is the only place that it’s about power. That’s not a distinction that holds up well in the actual machinations of the world.
Perhaps it would be clearest to say that some fear powerful state organizations but not powerful economic organizations because they think “markets” somehow keep the economic actors honest. I think not. The arm twisting takes a different form, but that’s about it.
So meanjoefan wants to be able to buy a Nissan without a catalytic converter (at least that's what I read into his thing about the Tsuru).
Actually, that's not true. It still has circa '94 emissions, which includes cats but not OBDII. It also probably doesn't have airbags, and I've probably have to check my own damn tire pressure. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Mexico has the same emissions cutoffs for owners of cars as the US does...meaning that a '14 Tsuru ought to be clean enough to pass PA emissions (but doesn't jump through the OBDII hoop).
and frankly, I really do have little respect for economics as a discipline.
This beggars the question, @Cigroller: why? Econ is descriptive, not normative…which is to say, it describes how things are and how they work, not how they ought to be. To dislike economists because they have uncovered human nature to be “self-interested maximizers of utility” is akin to hating Issac Newton because you want to be able to fly.
At the very least, an economically-literate environmentalist (especially one who understood “perverse incentive structures”) would know better than to create self-destructive regs like “the endangered species act.” If an endangered species is found on your land, you must cease any use that harms that species? Well, this creates an obvious incentive not only to drive off said species, but to slash-and-burn any attractive habitat before said species moves in. It has been postulated that the ESA generally makes things worse, not better.
(An economically-literate environmentalist would do something like offering a bounty for every endangered species one finds on one’s property, which would have been waaaay more effective.)
A small truck, such as a Colorado, fills a special need. My son searched for a good used compact pickup truck for several months and finally located a Chevrolet S-10 with a 4 cylinder engine in good condition. He needed the maneuverability and mileage of a smaller vehicle. His hauling consists of taking the garbage to a collection center and bringing home building materials from Lowes. The S-10 fills the bill just fine without the bulk of a larger vehicle. He uses the S-10 to commute a half an hour each way to his job. A Silverado was too much truck, in his opinion, for this need.
@meanjoe75fan, well, your timing is bad. I was going to let mountainbike have the last word and drop out. It’s not that it isn’t a ball of fun, but frankly - I am sitting under a large pile of intense work, and Cartalk should be called “procrastination station.” Spending my time on this now is a bad “choice” for me (see I do know that there are choices
I just can’t leave the thing about economics though. I’m sorry, but economics is ideology pure and simple. It has uncovered no natural laws, not does it simply describe. It is purely normative, but becomes insidious when it poses as the equivalent of physics and hard science. It’s not. In fact, it might be the single largest ideological problem that the world has right now - exactly because it is construed as “science” and about “laws.”
I can’t even begin to pull it apart for you - even if I wasn’t trying not to procrastinate. (Not to worry though - my procrastination does come purely out of my own hide not out of anyone else’s pocket). All I can say is that if you really want to begin to approach it, then you’d have to expand your attention to the social sciences beyond economics. I promise you that there are mountains of it outside of economics.
So I realize my brief comment is not a “counter” and I don’t mean to be dismissive. I’m just leaving the note - no I don’t see economics the way you do at all - not even a little bit. And it’s a lot more than merely something that I happen to think or just some “personal opinion” as if that’s all there is to it. My head is elsewhere right now, but if I come with any simple-ish ways to be brief about it, I will.
The answer is yes. I would rather have a Colorado or Canyon over a full size truck. I still have my S-10 because used truck prices are outrageous . One bad knee and one mechanical knee means climbing in a full size truck is difficult. Maybe the 2015 Colorado will be in my budget.
One good experience is voting. Despite theories that do crazies work because people vote for those who support their self-interests, the reality is that people vote for people they perceive as being like themselves. Not usually in income, but in worldview. People who talk the same, go to the same sort of church, appear to have similar tastes. They can vote against their constituents’ interests repeatedly as long as the constituents find them likable and easy to identify with. That’s why made Bill Clinton formidable. He had the education and smarts to talk to corporate Clos, but came across as a down home Bubba to the working class, especially in the South, where Democrats were struggling by then. Political theorists who talk about self interest constantly make mistakes predicting elections. It’s far down the criteria voters use in choosing a candidate. Probably even less so for the swing voters who decide elections. For them it’s often unclear what is in their self interest. So they do what the rest of us do and vote for someone who makes us comfortable, who seems sort of like us. Obama seemed more like a regular guy than Romney, who oozed the privileges of the rich.
Sorry that is garbled in parts. My older phone won’t always let me edit posts or even let me scroll up more than four or five lines. Sometimes I just give up and let the errors stay. But the start of that last one got very messed up. Sorry.
People able to act in their own self-interest is precisely what makes the whole system work.
I think that’s what’s WRONG with the system. If I voted for environmental laws based on my own self interest I never would have voted for them…because some (if not many) were NOT for my SELF best interest. They were however for my kids and grand-kids best interest. I have another word for self-interest - GREED.
No one entity has the amount of managed funds that can be used for the greater good then central govts. as far as development, research and regulation is concerned. No for profit entity can afford the investment necessary to make our lives better in an ever changing world when yearly bottom line profit margins are necessarily stifling to that end. While there is obvious misuse of these funds at times, the counter argument is that business has long been a huge factor in limiting, controlling and actually restricting developement of advanced technologies for the better ment of man kind. Neither govt. regulation along with direct funding for research and private enterprise can exist in today’s world without the other. The Govt. MAKES relatively speaking, nothing itself.
There are precious few life saving technologies, medicines and operating procedures that weren’t from the impetus of a central government that works for the benefit of it’s citizens through it’s elected officials. To argue one vs the other instead of to what degree they each cooperate is a diversion; a diversion to the real motivation, acquisition of wealth. That acquisition takes the form of miss use of public funds as well as corporate hoarding of funds. The debate can better be served by limiting it to making efficient use of public funds for the better good and not just doing away with necessary factions of it. To talk that way just makes those who want to do away with a bunch of govt. agencies sound a little obscure and difficult to understand. The world is expanding in ways we never though. Unfortunately, there are times of more, not less involvement. The auto industry is a prime example. Industry has no short term profit motivation for making pollution control a top priority with them, or corrosion control or safety or…you name it. Obviously, govt. stumbles in it’s attempt as it’s always a work in progress. But it is necessary. Otherwise, we would all still be breathing coal dust .
Cig, there’s been a lot of activity on this thread since I last visited, but I so want to respond to your earlier comments.
The reason I place all the blame on the shoulders of the politicians is because I believe that if they were not swayed by the lobbyists and what is basically the corporate money and its ability to sway voters, pooled capital would not intrinsically be a problem. The problem in my view is not the pooled money itself, or the corporate form of mitigating risk for investors, but rather the misuse of the pooled money. The pols use it to get elected and reelected via union support, campaign contributions, supportive advertising, supportive manipulated media exposure, and all the other shenanigans they engage in.
IMHO the pols have an absolute obligation to act in the best interest of the constituents they represent, and I believe they instead often (TOO often) act in the best interests of those that can get them votes and/or contribute to their (re)elections. The businesses are not in business to act in the best interests of the populous. They’re in business to make money. They use the aforementioned to make more money. As long as no laws are violated, I have no problem with that. The lobbyists are doing what they’re paid for. Again, as long as no laws are broken I have no problem with that either. I place the blame for the corruption squarely on the shoulders of the pols.
I believe the fear by our founders of concentration of power refers to the fear of another monarchy and its abuses as demonstrated by King George III, as described by the Declaration of Independence. It was not in my view a fear of concentration of capital. I would argue that the original intent was to have the presidency and the legislative offices served by common folk with leadership abilities. Professional politicians were not envisioned in the original documents. Their concept would not have been subject to the kinds of abuses under debate here.
The complexities of the world demand dedicated service from individuals whose livelihood depends upon their quality of service. That is true for an automobile professional mechanic and is equally true for a politician. Unfortunaltely as much as we would like the central govt run by the average guy like small state and local governments it is impossible for these people to put the time and effort to do justice to their job. Without accumulated knowledge that professionalism brings to an occupation, any govt. would be handicapped.
As far as the influence of the lobbiest and corporatations and how much it affects our political process, that is a direct result of those laws and regulations and oppointments to the supreme court of those we elect to represent us. It did not happen haphazardly. We the citizenry with an open mind chose to follow that path. We elected those people who supported the level of corporate influence in our govt. and set the rules they follow that we now have today. The constitution allows for elected officials to make such decisions. We did this knowing, willingly and with the complete authority of the constitution. When the citizenry complains about the influence of outside forces beyound their control, they have only themselves to blame when they look in the mirror.
If for example, if I don’t like all of the pork that goes into govt. spending, then I can’t be swayed by the campaign promise to bring jobs to my area on the back of govt. contract spending. To accept either is to live and accept responsibility for both. The best hedge agaisnt govt. abuse, is knowledge with a complete open mind and the acceptance that with a free and open democracy comes personal responsibility.
mountainbike, needless to say I have things to say about all of that (and much would have to do with the “well, in principle…but in practice…” or whatever). And now I do follow your logic on the $$ & pols, so thanks for clarifying. But I do need to check out for a while. Good talk again. I’m sure we’ll do it again sometime [handshake]
(Not to worry though - my procrastination does come purely out of my own hide not out of anyone else's pocket).
Why would I–of all people–take exception to your procrastination? So long as the utility you receive from procrastination EXCEEDS the product of (the utility you’d lose from getting fired, times the probablitly of actually being fired)…your optimal move is to procrastinate!
I think we have heard about the only two people in America that prefer a mid-size truck that is truly mid-size. The Frontier and Tacoma are essentially full size trucks because their buyers wanted a bigger truck. And the same applies to the F-series and Silverado buyers. Ford still builds the Ranger; they just don’t sell it in the USA anymore because hardly anyone was buying it.
