Free market = plutocratic tyranny.

WOW...........This is a challenge too good to pass up. specially with all of those stars on this thread...............................................

.......................................................................................................................

Corporate-ism is a bit of a corruption of free markets. Its all about economies of scale, those factors which contribute to larger economies of scale also contribute to corporate-ism.

Take our big Pharmacy industry: If an inventor or a developer receives protection for Discovery/research. and Gvmt provides and exclusive right to manufacture and sell a particular perscription/drug then that developer has a guaranteed market, guaranteed financing and monopoly rights to that Development for how ever many years the patent runs.
Are we to debate an inventors patent protection for that Development? They get around it overseas...but in Western nations, the rule of law protects the Developer, in part to encourage investment and development of new discoveries.

Same thing with musicians receiving protection for thier songs and studios receiving protection for thier movies. Coach and Addidas receive protection for thier handbags and shoes and trademark labels.

I guess we can all go to a flea market and buy knock-off goods,most people respect the system though.

Barriers to entry act to encourage corporate-ism. its easier to open up an insurance agency than to open an automobile manufacturer.
The large corporations are better placed to deal with Gvmt regulation than smaller firms. The Big Banks love regulation because it trips up smaller start up competitors. Union contracts and work rules can also contribute to economies of scale.
Big Gvmt bail-outs and programs can help big corporations, The Farm bill, Stem cell bill, Highway bill etc. The big Corporations and elected officials work together to pass these bills thruogh Congress where hand-outs are harvested by big corporations. Who got rich off Katrina?
Deregulation can chop back Corporatism by bringing competition to the market.

I dono that anybody ever promised me a world with no business cycle. We are always goint to have booms and bust no matter what anybody anywhere tells you. These cycles are driven as much by the animal spirits within us all as any set of regulations. Perhaps some stock-picker somewhere sold nirvana, fools who bought that story.

wellll its hard to turn off the Kenesian spigot....Kenesian concepts have beeen part of Gvmt Mgmt since the Great Depression, good times or bad.
During our most recent Boom we had the Farm bill, Energy bill, Stem Cell Bill, Highway bill, we had big spending for military, education, polution abatement. Housing. Not that I am judging good or bad but Kenesian spending seems to always be with us.
Where I am at, we have competing goverment programs to perserve wilderness and to develop it for afffordable housing, with goverment money going in both directions.

Sounds like a critique of the 1890's when railroad and steel barons ruled the land. Astors, Vanderbilts, Mellons, Carnigie. It does not ring true in Obama's America You are setting up straw men here to take a shot at.

I'm gonna concur with this Balbus, back in Aincent Rome, The Spain of Phillip II or the France of Louis XIV it was about what powerful family you were with, or who was protecting you. At no time in our past has nirvana been achieved and I don not see it in our future. Wealth does take over through goverment corruption and goverment influence. A smaller goverment will be subject to less influence

Tell me about the mirage of a socialist utopia with goverment having thier hands in everything

 

Piney, just doing some housekeeping when I discovered I hadn’t given you a reply to this post, here is one, I’m sorry it took so long.
*

So how would you stop it happening? My argument is that moves to a free market end in a corrupted ‘free markets’ that serves only a few.

Again - how would you stop this from happening?

Are you saying nobody should be able to patent anything? That there should be no copyright on anything?
I really don’t understand the point you’re trying to make.
*

But again – HOW would you bring this about?
As I’ve said in a perfect world a perfect system would work perfectly.
But historically it hasn’t worked that way - what has happened is that unregulated systems tend toward monopoly or cabals.

That’s the reason why countries have some kind of anti-trust laws or have in place checks on monopolies because it is known that these form without such regulation.
*
Quote:
To me the ‘free market’ model always seemed like a lie, a con game meant to fool the gullible. This was because it proponents seem to be claiming that they were a complete model that could deal with boom or bust, when in fact it wasn’t anything of the sort, it was in fact not even half a model, it wasn’t very good in boom times (except for wealth) and didn’t have anyway of dealing with busts.

They may not have promised you personally but there were plenty of free market punters out there pushing the line. Greenspan and the economists at the US Fed and Brown and the economists at the UK Treasury amongst them (the end of boom and bust).
There were many others that argued that risk had disappeared from the market because of the free market model being used shared out risk (such as Credit Default Swaps etc) so much that the system was immune to a large crash and could recover from any dip.
Greenspan admits he was wrong
Brown ran back to Keynesianism
And risk had been shared out using toxic products nearly brought down the whole financial system.
*
Quote:
So you end up with the untenable – Keynesian ideas in the low periods meaning the general population pays for the recovery and neo-liberal ideas in the up time which not only create the conditions for a down turn to happen but also means that wealth gains the profits and the general population gain little.

Has this rant got a point?
You seem to be claiming that all and any government spending is by definition ‘Keynesian’ spending.
That doesn’t actually address what I said and seems instead like misdirection.
*
Quote:
Because all free market systems favour wealth, the freer a ‘market system’ becomes the more wealth takes over power until a tipping point is reached and that’s when wealth re-orders things to its own interests and if left unchecked forms a tyranny of the wealthy.

I’m not sure what your argument is?
As I’ve pointed out the power of the robber barons was curtailed by regulation.
You seem to be arguing for deregulation and that a deregulated environment wouldn’t result in the emergence of such ‘barons’ even through when there wasn’t regulation it did.
*
Quote:
So in fact there never has been a totally and completely ‘free market’ because long before that could be achieved wealth has taken over and taken control, subverting the levers of government to do its bidding.

Again I’m unsure of your argument?
Are you claiming that Ancient Rome (oligarchic republic, military dictatorship), counter-reformation Spain (religious Kingship) and France in the Age of Absolutism (absolute kingship) are equivalent to modern democratic governments?
And if wealth does take over through government, any government, then why is having a weaker government going to help?
I mean without government or in those places where governance is lacking then power and influence has control, so wealth which has power and influence would have control.
Democratic government has on the whole come about to control and limit power, the nobles got together to limit the power of kings, common people got together to limit the power of the elite.
What you seem to be arguing is that if governance was withdrawn (deregulation) then the powerful wouldn’t take over, but they always have so why do you think your system would be different?
*
Small Government –
As I’ve said before I really don’t understand what – small government – is?
What is small about it?
Shouldn’t a government do the things you want it to irrespective of size?
I mean to me the important thing is good government, now a good or bad government could be relatively ‘big’ or ‘small’ in other words just being declared small does not mean that government is automatically good.
So when people drum on and on about ‘small government’ they seem to be missing the point.
*
Quote:
The mirage of a real ‘free market’ is a trap set up by wealth to ensnare the gullible.

This doesn’t address what I’ve said (if you want a debate on ‘a socialist utopia’ then start one), actually none of your replies seem to address what I’ve said.

You seem to be basically saying that if only the pure free market route were taken then things would turn out great

But what I’m saying and what you don’t address is that “any move toward free market principles strengthens the hands of wealth and if that route continues to be taken wealth gets strong enough to corrupt the system to its own wishes.”

Now democratic government can be a counter to the power of the few but it is just that counter weight that some seem to want to weaken while increasing the power of wealth.

 

From the few bits and pieces of debate in this thread, it seems you like facts and sources to back arguments. Understandable. Granted, there might be some sources threaded into the bickering, but it's silly to go through and try to pick them out.

So, taking your first post, please give me credible sources to back your statements.

I'm not much interested in the history for the time being.

 

Cabnights

Why is it silly to read the thread, I mean why are you asking the questions?
If you actually wanted answers why didn’t you read the thread to find out if it did hold the answers?
*

Quote:
The reality is that any move toward free market principles strengthens the hands of wealth and it that route continues to be taken wealth gets strong enough to corrupt the system to its own wishes.

As observed in ‘The Predator State’ by James K. Galbraith about wealth’s recent behaviour
Quote:
What did the new class - endowed with vast personal income, freed from the corporation, and otherwise left to the pursuit of its own social position - set out to do in political terms? The experience of the past decade permits a very simple summary explanation: they set out to take over the state and to run it - not for any ideological project but simply in the way that would bring them, individually and as a group, the most money, the least disturbed power, and the greatest chance of rescue should something go wrong. That is, they set out to prey on the existing institutions of the American regulatory and welfare system.

*

Quote:
This was because it proponents seem to be claiming that they were a complete model that could deal with boom or bust

This was the impression that many advocates of neoliberalism tried to give, which was that neoliberlist policies couldn’t lead to a ‘crash’ because it could deal with such fluctuations.
Many pointed out this wasn’t the case even some free market economists (who believe such ‘corrections’ were necessary) but in a black and white world, something is either all good or all bad, deregulators pushed the ‘good’ and dismissed those that talked of the risks as pessimistic scaremongers.

To quote the Cato institute on the Great Depression – “Many people think that we need a big government to prevent, or to reverse, recessions. But the 1930s illustrate that activist policies increase, not decrease, economic instability. Government interventions reduce the flexibility that markets need to adjust to shocks and return to growth.”

Alan Greenspan

And here are some comments by the economist Paul Krugman on Milton Friedman who many see as the father of neoliberal thought – “he slipped all too easily into claiming both that markets always work and that only markets work. It's extremely hard to find cases in which Friedman acknowledged the possibility that markets could go wrong, or that government intervention could serve a useful purpose” and points out that “Friedman's laissez-faire absolutism contributed to an intellectual climate in which faith in markets and disdain for government often trumps the evidence.”
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19857

*

Quote:
neo-liberal ideas in the up time which not only create the conditions for a down turn to happen but also means that wealth gains the profits and the general population gain little

Try – A brief History of Neoliberalism by David Harvey

There is a limited preview at Google books
http://books.google.co.uk/books

 

What I’m arguing is that there is a difference between theory and practice.

Many free marketeers point to theory – saying that under the theoretical free market model, such and such a thing would be impossible – what I’m saying is that a long time before any such theoretical model could be implemented the ‘free market’ model would have been hijacked and corrupted to serve the interests of a few.

I think that was what happened before the recent financial crisis, theoretical free market ideas, were sold to politicians and citizens as an answer to economic problems but actually came to cause greater problems, and were moulded to suite the interests of a few.

*

There are theoretical schools of free market thought that openly express the supposed virtues of boom and bust. But on the whole they were not the ones being promoted by ‘free market’ punters, it is very hard to sell the idea that a depression every few years is a ‘good’ thing, so what many free marketeer’s emphasised was the ‘stability’ of the model, and there was a lot of talk about the spreading of risk. This argument was that risk was so spread out that the risk was negligible, the were such things as Credit Default Swaps ‘insurance’ to cover deals - that now there were those that wanted all this regulated (like Brooksley Born, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooksley_Born)
But free market pundits (like Alan Greenspan) argued against it, the view being that wherever possible the markets should regulate themselves.

*

 

I will add my Freddie comments to this thread.

The housing bubble caused this messed, and Freddie and Fannie were the catalyst to start it along with the Fed policy, Balbus might not want to admit this but reality is hard sometimes. Think about it, where did banks get the money to make these loans driven and backed up at the end of chain by Freddie and Fannie. Possibly a government printing press and 2 administrations in a row urging banks to make high risk loans to people as home ownership somehow became a right?

Freddie and Fannie were 2 government created and it was thought often among investors to be fully government backed up too. After the dot.com bubble both the fed, government and private investors went to the housing market. With 2 supposedly government backed up companies does it matter to banks that bought them what happened to the mortgage securities?

 

I'm calling it silly for me to sift through nine pages of mostly unrelated squabbling and baseless counter-arguments to find a few bits of information that you easily gave to me. But we're digressing...

I believe any system of government, whether it be capitalist, communist, socialist, etc., would invariably become corrupt to some level at some point. I'd be most interested in what system best reduces the possibility and chance for corruption, as well as the actual levels.


http://dmrightside.blogspot.com/2008/12/small-government-powerful-tool-in.html

Video from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity
http://www.robertmcnickle.com/rob_m...t-equals-less-opportunity-for-corruption.html


http://www.nassauinstitute.org/articles/article736.php?view=print

www.economics.harvard.edu/.../Corruption, Inequality and Fairness.pdf

www.economics.harvard.edu/pub/hier/2004/HIER2043.pdf

My first point is that a smaller government does not lead to more corruption. The statement that moves towards free market principles means increased corruption doesn't hold water.

 

Cabnight

What agencies?

And wouldn’t this be an indictment of the system of campaign contribution rather than ‘government’ in other words the problem isn’t ‘government’ but wealth using its power to try and corrupt – the conclusion being that what needs to be contained is not government but private wealth.

*

What government contracts – for example if a government employed its cleaning staff directly, that is it.

But lets say the government contracts out its cleaning and the company that gets that contract get XX profits and there are several companies hungry to get their hands on that profit, and are therefore willing to bend the rules to get it.

So in that case contracted out government is liable to lead to corruption, which is initiated by private companies.
Once again it isn’t government been corrupt it is outside (wealth driven) forces trying to corrupt government.

But the Harvard study you quote specifically sates that isn’t the case.
*

This I thought was quite funny – the man argues that the big problem is lobbyists - then admits he is in fact from one of the biggest lobbying think tanks, the Cato Institute.

I’ve covered the corrupting influence of lobbyists (including Cato) at
Conspiracy or lobbying?
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=314393&f=36

And the main problem is private/corporate wealth.

“Cato was founded in 1977 by Edward H. Cane and Charles Koch, the billionaire co-owner of Koch Industries.”
And Koch is “one of the largest single sources of funding for conservative organisations in the United States.”
And dear little Cato is kept going with help from a number of corporations and right wing funding foundations.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=CATO_Institute

Anyway back to Cato’s puppet – he claims anti-corruption laws don’t help yet the Harvard study you cite says “This regression [chart] shows that states with stricter anti-corruption laws have fewer corruption convictions, so these laws appear to have an effect of dampening corruption.”

He says we should deal with the symptom of corruption, I agree but the source of the problem seems to be private/corporate wealth.

*

Your point being? That it’s better not to live in Zimbabwe, I agree.
*

This paper seems to be arguing my case – basically it is saying that if a system that is wealth dominated which has brought about great inequality, wealth will try and corrupt the system in its own interests. The emphasis seems to be largely based in developing countries whose populations want to bring in distributive policies to curb the power of wealth.

It’s conclusion seems to be that unregulated systems give power to wealth and redistributed systems have to be carefully implemented or wealth will try to take them over. And I agree.
*

But this post says -

“Overall, the results on government give no support to the view that bigger governments or governments with more regulation are more corrupt. Of course, this non-finding might reflect the fact that people in more corrupt states are more opposed to bigger government.”

*

Basically wealth has to resort to try and corrupt government to gain a bit of control because government regulation is trying to stop it having direct and complete control.

And so your answer is to just let wealth have direct control unburdened by any regulation that might try and curb its power.

Which would seem to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

*

 

I repeat -

 

mad

But you could read –

Fannie, Freddie and You
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/op...in&oref=slogin

The GOP Blames the Victim
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1222...googlenews_wsj


Don't blame Fannie and Freddie
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf.../usa.mortgages

 

The author does not refer exclusively to contributions. The entire point of the first quote was missed - bigger government means more positions to fill means greater possibility for someone to sell a seat - for money or otherwise. It hasn't got a thing to with controlling wealth. It's greed. Unless you're arguing that if everyone in the world made the same amount of money (the ultimate controlled wealth, no?), nobody would attempt to give away positions in returns for favors?

Sure, I'll give you that without private contractors, you would eliminate private corruption in government. Regardless, those jobs need to be filled by someone. The person who oversees the now public cleaning agency gets that job somehow. Why not pay someone to get it? It doesn't eliminate the possibility for corruption.

Missed it again. "Smaller Government Equals Less Opportunity For Corruption" was the name of that video. He's arguing without the vast amounts of money that we spend, there would be less money to corrupt and fewer lobbyists going after it. Lobbyists are a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself.

Missed this one, too. This thread is about free markets. Contrast their findings against your statement and repeated assertions that free markets create corruption:

"...only ever resulted in wealth becoming more wealthy and powerful and the supposed ‘freer’ system coming more under there control and corrupted to their interests."

Your response was the most thoroughly confusing thus far. "Bigger governments raise the possibilities for corruptions; more corruption may in turn raise the support for redistributive policies that intend to correct the inequality and injustice generated by corruption" is the first sentence of the abstract, a far cry from what you claim. Wealth dominated because of corruption, not free markets - totally separate topics.

Notice the use of "might." Speculation, but you're missing their official conclusion:

"There is little relationship between the size of government and corruption"

Once again, none of my sources point to free markets (the topic of this thread) being the cause of corruption. I've seen the wealthy corrupting being the symptom of corruption, but that's not this debate.

 

Cabnight

Now I’ve said several times (and I believe twice in this thread) that I’m unsure what is meant by ‘small government’, it seems too much like a slogan than a thought through idea and in the past when I’ve discussed this with ‘small government’ advocates the small has started ballooning or they just don’t know how it would work.

So please can you explain what you mean by ‘small government’ because you use it as if it were a reply when to me it isn’t it’s a question mark.


*

Quote:
What agencies?

And wouldn’t this be an indictment of the system of campaign contribution rather than ‘government’ in other words the problem isn’t ‘government’ but wealth using its power to try and corrupt – the conclusion being that what needs to be contained is not government but private wealth.

The bit you quoted and therefore must have wanted highlighted specifically made the connection between corruption and campaign contributions and I quote – “rewards for campaign contributions”
So can you please address what I said?
I mean as you say it is about greed – people trying to bribe and corrupt others to try and gain from it, using wealth to gain positions of power and influence.
I’m saying, and have said many times – I think the US electoral system needs reform so as to diminish the influence wealth can have over it.
And your view that ‘big’ government brings about greater corruption seems undermined by what you cite below - "There is little relationship between the size of government and corruption"
*
Quote:
What government contracts – for example if a government employed its cleaning staff directly, that is it.

But lets say the government contracts out its cleaning and the company that gets that contract get XX profits and there are several companies hungry to get their hands on that profit, and are therefore willing to bend the rules to get it.

So in that case contracted out government is liable to lead to corruption, which is initiated by private companies.
Once again it isn’t government been corrupt it is outside (wealth driven) forces trying to corrupt government.

As I said – “if a government employed its cleaning staff directly, that is it” – the cleaning department would get a budget employ the staff directly and that would be that. I mean people going for a cleaner’s job aren’t likely to have the funds to bribe their way into the job.
As you say “without private contractors, you would eliminate private corruption in government”

I’m unsure what you mean are you implying that every person in every job in every government got there due to corruption?
*
Quote:
This I thought was quite funny – the man argues that the big problem is lobbyists - then admits he is in fact from one of the biggest lobbying think tanks, the Cato Institute.

In what way did I miss it?
To quote me - “Basically wealth has to resort to try and corrupt government to gain a bit of control because government regulation is trying to stop it having direct and complete control.”
Cato is pushing the right wing agenda of its founder and many of its supporters – to take the point made above in the article you cite – people are looking for rewards for their campaign contributions, they are funding a free market campaign in the hope of reaping rewards - that’s what lobbying is.
Wealth is using its greater monetary power to try and buy influence and change policy in its favour, to me that is a corruption of the system.
*
Your point being? That it’s better not to live in Zimbabwe, I agree.

Again what do you believe I’ve missed?

These are all to one degree or another democratic states and as I’ve said repeatedly they’re the best equipped to limit the influence of elites.
But there are great disparities between even this group, the French and German financial systems where (and are) a lot more regulated and controlled than the British and US ones. And they weathered the financial storm a lot better than the US and UK. A lot less public money (tax payers money) went into bail out the private sector.
In other words the ‘Anglo-Saxon’ financial model, which emphasised its free market thinking – ended with nearly bring down the whole system and only exists today because taxpayer helped them out – a massive amount of public money going into private hands as Mervin King (the governor of the bank of England) has recently said "To paraphrase a great wartime leader, never in the field of financial endeavour has so much money been owed by so few to so many. And, one might add, so far with little real reform."

*
Quote:
This paper seems to be arguing my case – basically it is saying that if a system that is wealth dominated which has brought about great inequality, wealth will try and corrupt the system in its own interests. The emphasis seems to be largely based in developing countries whose populations want to bring in distributive policies to curb the power of wealth.

It’s conclusion seems to be that unregulated systems give power to wealth and redistributed systems have to be carefully implemented or wealth will try to take them over. And I agree.

Well I read the whole paper, not just the first sentence and I stick with my impression, what they seemed to be saying is that – in a wealth dominated system, there is pressure for redistribution but if money is allowed to hijack that move it can corrupt that system.
But again you seemed to have it back to front – people see a system that is unfair (corrupt, as in rotten) and therefore push for greater distribution of wealth, but if implemented badly this redistribution could cause other types of corruption.
And I agree but are you saying that no attempt should be made to try and reform the original corrupt system because it might lead, if badly introduced, to the possibility of corruption?
*
Quote:
Overall, the results on government give no support to the view that bigger governments or governments with more regulation are more corrupt. Of course, this non-finding might reflect the fact that people in more corrupt states are more opposed to bigger government.”

Yes they say that “Overall, the results on government give no support to the view that bigger governments or governments with more regulation are more corrupt”
But you seem to be arguing the opposite, that ‘big’ governments are always corrupt and ‘small’ governments are always less corrupt.
Thing is if ‘government’ is streamlined with more power in fewer hands and with less oversight and monitoring doesn’t that make it easier for the corruptor – they have fewer people to bribe and less chance of being discovered?
*
Quote:
Basically wealth has to resort to try and corrupt government to gain a bit of control because government regulation is trying to stop it having direct and complete control.

And so your answer is to just let wealth have direct control unburdened by any regulation that might try and curb its power.

Which would seem to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Yes I spotted some peoples confusion earlier and that’s why I put in a clarification, hoping they’d spot it.

The post above - about the difference between free market theory and the implementation of supposedly free market policies.

A free market theory is one thing but that’s not the ‘free market’ that seems to get implemented.

*

 

Small government is usually very closely related to free markets.

Taken from Wikipedia:

"A Small government is one which minimizes its own activities. In its 'perfect' form, minarchism, the state confines itself to foreign policy, defense and law while leaving other activities to local government, companies and individuals.
It is a concept important to classical liberalism and libertarianism."

Which is also closely related to Laissez-faire economics.

But, once again, the author does not refer exclusively to contributions:

"...as rewards for campaign contributions, personal loyalty, or other non-meritorious reasons."

Nor does it refer exclusively to elected officials. But you're arguing that wealth now corrupts the electoral system? Source?

But you are correct that the author's theories are unsupported by the evidence I've shown, but the point was to show theories as well as evidence to refute your claim.

I never referred to an entry-level cleaner position, or someone without money.

No.

I'm not sure how to break it down further.

But you're quote is unfounded, still.

According the the findings, "the greater the degree of government intervention, the greater the likelihood of a higher level of experienced and perceived corruption."

Which is what this debate is, correct? Government intervention (as related to free markets) and Corruption?

They didn't say the entire system is corrupt, but stated that there is a "stronger moral justification for doing so [redistribution] when inequality stems from corruption and rent seeking." Income inequality is an inherent part of a free market system, but they are pointing, in this case, to the inequality due to corruption. But is seems we do agree that the government that more closely resembles a free market system is at the very least less corrupt, according to their findings.

Going into another debate would be going off topic. For the time being, and since I've started posting, I'm solely attempting to show that free markets don't create more corruption. But I do see a difference in reform and redistribution.

What I'm arguing is there's mixed evidence, but it points to either A) bigger government is related to an increase in corruption, or B) there's no difference in size of government in relation to corruption, but not free markets increasing corruption.

There is no pure free market. It is an economic theory. But these sources understand that, and not one of them is based of a free market theory, but the principles of free markets in modern governments.

 

Cabnight

Quote:
Now I’ve said several times (and I believe twice in this thread) that I’m unsure what is meant by ‘small government’, it seems too much like a slogan than a thought through idea and in the past when I’ve discussed this with ‘small government’ advocates the small has started ballooning or they just don’t know how it would work.

So basically you’re not sure?
It’s kind of related to X or Y or Z – is not a very clear answer.
I think it’s already been pointed out that ‘perfect’ systems/theories are not practicable in the real world because the real world it isn’t perfect.

So giving me a wiki quote about a ‘perfect’ form seems next to useless.

What is your definition?

*

Quote:
The bit you quoted and therefore must have wanted highlighted specifically made the connection between corruption and campaign contributions and I quote – “rewards for campaign contributions”
So can you please address what I said?
I mean as you say it is about greed – people trying to bribe and corrupt others to try and gain from it, using wealth to gain positions of power and influence.
I’m saying, and have said many times – I think the US electoral system needs reform so as to diminish the influence wealth can have over it.
And your view that ‘big’ government brings about greater corruption seems undermined by what you cite below - "There is little relationship between the size of government and corruption"

Are you going to address the issue raised?

As to loyalty look at the opposite, disloyalty, just because someone you get on with and who has the same goals as you is appointed to a position is not necessarily a sign of venal corruption or that they’re not up to the job.
If cronyism or nepotism is going on that is a failure of the system and of course it is not confined to only public positions.
*

Are you really arguing it doesn’t? Or is this a stalling move to try and get out of addressing the issue? I mean you cite that very thing just above “rewards for campaign contributions”
Campaign money corrupts
http://www.wvoter-owned.org/news/2008/03_02.html

But your ‘theories’ and ‘evidence’ don’t seem to refute my claims at all.
*
Quote:
As I said – “if a government employed its cleaning staff directly, that is it” – the cleaning department would get a budget employ the staff directly and that would be that. I mean people going for a cleaner’s job aren’t likely to have the funds to bribe their way into the job.
As you say “without private contractors, you would eliminate private corruption in government”

But I did, as a way of showing that direct employment rather than the outsourcing to contractors (that hope to make a profit), could be a way of cutting the kind of corruption you’ve talked about and above you agreed –
“I'll give you that without private contractors, you would eliminate private corruption in government”
Why are you trying to misdirect rather than address the points raised?
*
Quote:
I’m unsure what you mean are you implying that every person in every job in every government got there due to corruption?

LOL, so what did you mean? Why even raise it if that wasn’t your meaning?
*
Quote:
In what way did I miss it?
To quote me - “Basically wealth has to resort to try and corrupt government to gain a bit of control because government regulation is trying to stop it having direct and complete control.”
Cato is pushing the right wing agenda of its founder and many of its supporters – to take the point made above in the article you cite – people are looking for rewards for their campaign contributions, they are funding a free market campaign in the hope of reaping rewards - that’s what lobbying is.
Wealth is using its greater monetary power to try and buy influence and change policy in its favour, to me that is a corruption of the system.

That would seem to imply that you’re not sure what you’re talking about or at the very least haven’t thought it through?
And you’re not addressing the points raised.

That is your assertion, but that’s all it is at the moment, an assertion.
*
Quote:
Again what do you believe I’ve missed?

But you also cite that - “Overall, the results on government give no support to the view that bigger governments or governments with more regulation are more corrupt”
And I’ve pointed this out so what did I miss?
You seem to be quibbling rather than addressing the issues.

Well actually this is about how ‘free market’ theories can be manipulated by wealth to work in their interests. The emphasis on ‘corruption’ is coming from you, but I’m happy to discuss the subject.
My view is that wealth corrupts for gain what you seem to be proposing is to allow the corruptors easier or total access, and hope they act responsibly. My view is that it won’t because it hasn’t in the past, (kings, nobles, robber barons etc). And that what is needed is good governance to check the power and influence of money. You don’t seem to care about good governance just ‘small’ government (which is somehow a ‘related’ to free market principles that you seem to admit has never existed in reality).
*
Quote:
Well I read the whole paper, not just the first sentence and I stick with my impression, what they seemed to be saying is that – in a wealth dominated system, there is pressure for redistribution but if money is allowed to hijack that move it can corrupt that system.
But again you seemed to have it back to front – people see a system that is unfair (corrupt, as in rotten) and therefore push for greater distribution of wealth, but if implemented badly this redistribution could cause other types of corruption.
And I agree but are you saying that no attempt should be made to try and reform the original corrupt system because it might lead, if badly introduced, to the possibility of corruption?

Don’t you see that this is my argument?
In an unregulated system wealth dominates and where wealth dominates the system is corrupted to suite wealth, which is due to inequality of power (wealth). In a regulated system wealth will seek deregulation, because that’s a way of increasing wealth and power and brings about greater inequality and at some point a tipping point is reached were it is a unregulated wealth dominated system.
*

But you admit no ‘free market’ has ever existed, and that’s what I’ve said, the problem is that ‘free market’ supports are pushing a fantasy in the hope of gain.
Thing is that when you get a profit ethos rather than a public service ethos you are likely to get corruption.
*
Quote:
Yes they say that “Overall, the results on government give no support to the view that bigger governments or governments with more regulation are more corrupt”
But you seem to be arguing the opposite, that ‘big’ governments are always corrupt and ‘small’ governments are always less corrupt.
Thing is if ‘government’ is streamlined with more power in fewer hands and with less oversight and monitoring doesn’t that make it easier for the corruptor – they have fewer people to bribe and less chance of being discovered?

Again its not ‘free market theory’ but the supposed ‘free market’ policies that are implemented that is the problem, the corrupted ideas that corrupt.
To you it doesn’t seem to matter if it is a good policy or a bad policy as long as it is a ‘free market’ policy it must be a good idea.
Just as you don’t seem to mind if it is a good government or a bad government just as long as it is a ‘small’ government it must be good.
As I say I think this kind of thinking misses the point.
As I’ve said if ‘government’ is streamlined with more power in fewer hands and with less oversight and monitoring doesn’t that make it easier for the corruptor – they have fewer people to bribe and less chance of being discovered?
*
Quote:
Yes I spotted some peoples confusion earlier and that’s why I put in a clarification, hoping they’d spot it.

The post above - about the difference between free market theory and the implementation of supposedly free market policies.

A free market theory is one thing but that’s not the ‘free market’ that seems to get implemented.

And what have been the effects of supposed ‘free market;’ policies been on the modern world?

It seems to me that inequality has risen, the incomes of the already wealth have risen while those of the middle and low classes have stagnated or fallen.

Lets look at the US

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/mar2007/inco-m30.shtml
*

 

OK to recap

It seems to be argued that ‘small’ government (although it hasn’t been defined) in conjunction with the ‘free market’ (although it is admitted this is a theoretical model that has never existed), is the ‘best’ system for a society.

Yet it seems to me that policies backed by free market pundits who also preached ‘small’ government and deregulation have actually shifted power and influence into the hands of a few at the expense of everyone else.

I don’t think that is a very good direction for a society to be taking and I fear that if pursued it could result in a plutocracy.

The reply to my criticisms is that ‘theoretically’ a small government/free market system would work, if it was brought in perfectly, the conditions were perfect and everything worked perfectly.

The problem is reality isn’t perfect.

 

My definition of a small government is a government that protects the rights and liberties of the people while limiting government intervention. There is not one set model of small government, or a set cutoff point where a government is no longer small, but it's useful when comparing countries or discussing policies and economics.

I'm not sure how you think this would result in a negative outcome for those who aren't rich. If you break down the income distribution in the United States into five brackets, all five have been increasing. Granted, the top brackets are increasing at a quicker pace, but this fails to take into account a variety of factors, including mobility and population entering the workforce. As a whole, the income is without a doubt increasing. Besides, if every bracket was to rise significantly, this would result in inflation. The price of goods and services would have to rise because of higher costs associated with paying higher wages and would this would also just erode purchasing power.

Regardless of how "free" markets become, there still is the government and there is still our system of checks and balances; none of that disappears and our rights are still protected.

 

Cabnight

Sorry but that’s just rhetoric, someone is unlikely to say their political stance would bring about a government that didn’t protect the rights and liberties of the people – and it depends on what you mean by ‘intervention’, I don’t want my door kicked in by ‘g-men’ but then I’m thankful for government programmes that assist me if I became unemployed or sick or government action that stop the a melt down of the economy brought on by greedy bankers.

Again you’re basically saying you don’t know what a ‘small’ government is so how can it be useful?

This is exactly what I’ve been saying is the problem when I’ve talked with the advocates of ‘small government’ they just don’t seem to know what they mean – wouldn’t it be better to concentrate on having good governance rather than been fixated on the supposed size of a government?

 

Cabnight

Bit of a misdirection, thing is that you can have ‘increase’ but be standing still or falling back, just because you earn more than your father or grandfather did does not necessarily mean you are ‘better off’ than your father or grandfather. Many economists and analysts believe that median incomes have stagnated or fallen.

A decade with no income gains
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/a-decade-with-no-income-gain/

In what way does your ‘factors’ change the fact that the rich have vastly increased their wealth compared with other groups?

*

But as I’ve said that can be misleading –

One year Person A makes 10,000 dollars – person B $1000 – and person C $150

5 years later - Person A makes 20,000 dollars – person B $1010 – and person C $152

Well, as a whole, the income has increased, but has it increased evenly across the board, no. Also lets say the cost of living has gone up, by say 10 dollars, this means -

Person A has in real terms made 19,990 dollars – person B $1000 – and person C $142

So in ‘real terms’ one persons income has increase, one has stagnated and the other’s has dropped.

Prof Paul Krugman
http://news.scotsman.com/john-mccain/Paul-Krugman-Plumbing--new.4630334.jp

Economy’s Gains Fail to Reach Most Workers’ Paychecks
http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/bp195/

*

 

Cabnight

I see so are you saying its OK if one group significantly if not vastly increases its wealth as long as no one else does?

And a way to lower inflation according to free market leaning economists like Milton Friedman was to keep wages below inflation and the result of that is that people’s real incomes drop, which is very good for employers because in real terms their profits go up and they can use that to justify paying themselves wages vastly above inflation. Which was what happened from the eighties.

Back in the sixties/seventies CEO’s earned about 30 times more than the average workers wage by 2000 it was 500 times. Its gone down a bit today to around 300 times.

Wiki citing - Behind the Big Paydays, The Washington Post', November 15, 2008

*

Again what are you saying?

You claimed ‘small’ government was “very closely related to free markets” are you now saying it is not as related to free markets?

As to checks and balances, again there is this problem I’ve mentioned before with small government advocates of ‘small’ starting to balloon.

Thing is many ‘checks and balances’ are basically regulations.

So in other words it starts with ‘small’ but then they start saying things like – ‘well of course I keep those regulations’ – and the next thing you know there ‘small government’ doesn’t seem that different than any other government.

As I’ve said wouldn’t it be better to concentrate on having good governance rather than been fixated on the size of a government especially when you don’t seem able to actually define what you mean by ‘small’?

 

*

Free marketeers and their ‘small government’ fellow travellers talk a good talk they bang on about peoples rights and liberties and of getting the government off the peoples backs

The problem for me is that the actual policies always seem to be about the closing or cutting of economic and social programmes aimed at helping average or disadvantaged people, along with tax cuts, deregulation or other measures that only ever seem to help speculators’ and the rich.


*