[Ultimo Hombre]

So all these Free-marketeers and pure capitalists always bitch and moan because citizens make democratic choices to regulate and tax corporations. Their main criticism is that "the market" should decide, not "government"...

IMO citizens in a democracy ARE the market. It's a pure fact of life that we Americans serve duel, all be-it overlapping, roles in life. We are "citizens in a democracy", and we are also "consumers in a market" and I see absolutely no problem with exercising our "market leverage" through our political mechanisms.

Why are so many Republicans and Libertarians unable to understand this nuiance of reality? When citizens in a democracy elect someone to tax Exxon-Mobile and use that extra tax money to subsidize alternative energy sources- that is consumers in a market making decisions about that market- we are just using our political mechanisms to acheive our end. What's the problem with this?

40 years ago citizens decided that we did not want DDT in our pestisides. As such, we elected people to pass laws to take DDT off the market. I see no problem with this. It is consumers making a decision- just using politics to acheive the end.... The head-up-the-ass "free-market" people would say if we dont' want DDT in pestisides then we just shouldn't buy them, and if enough people take this course, then the maker of the chemical would eventually take it off the market for a suitable substitute. This is also a viable option to create market change, but I do not believe it should be "the only" option.

Thoughts?

[TheMMAn]

Originally Posted by Ultimo Hombre

So all these Free-marketeers and pure capitalists always bitch and moan because citizens make democratic choices to regulate and tax corporations. Their main criticism is that "the market" should decide, not "government"...

IMO citizens in a democracy ARE the market. It's a pure fact of life that we Americans serve duel, all be-it overlapping, roles in life. We are "citizens in a democracy", and we are also "consumers in a market" and I see absolutely no problem with exercising our "market leverage" through our political mechanisms.

Why are so many Republicans and Libertarians unable to understand this nuiance of reality? When citizens in a democracy elect someone to tax Exxon-Mobile and use that extra tax money to subsidize alternative energy sources- that is consumers in a market making decisions about that market- we are just using our political mechanisms to acheive our end. What's the problem with this?

40 years ago citizens decided that we did not want DDT in our pestisides. As such, we elected people to pass laws to take DDT off the market. I see no problem with this. It is consumers making a decision- just using politics to acheive the end.... The head-up-the-ass "free-market" people would say if we dont' want DDT in pestisides then we just shouldn't buy them, and if enough people take this course, then the maker of the chemical would eventually take it off the market for a suitable substitute. This is also a viable option to create market change, but I do not believe it should be "the only" option.

Thoughts?

Leaving aside such pesky little details like market efficiencies, maybe it has to do with the fact that we realize that we don't operate under a democracy, but rather a representative republic. It is not us who impose taxes on corporations, but rather professional politicians who work for lobbyists, and due to the fact that their main objective is maintaining power - not market maximization - pander to us, attempting to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Of course, this results in playing on irrational concepts like class warfare. Politicians will pander to the electorate by demonizing oil companies for doing exactly what they are supposed to do, maximize profitability. They underplay facts like oil companies are actually publically owned by millions of people all over the world. They play on the public's ignorance of fungible commodities in a global market, the effects on prices by demand coming from emerging markets like China and India. They arbitrarily assert that oil companies are making too much money, and decide to increase taxes and burdens on Big Oil.

What gets lost of course, is that the politicians (not the citizenry) penalize the oil companies, pleasing the ignorant masses, raising more money that the politicians can then use to further pander to his or her voters. But guess what, the oil companies won't actually pay the increase in taxes and burdens. The increased cost will be passed down to the very consumers who are demanding that the oil companies be punished for - high prices.

Sounds like an efficient system to me. (and don't get me started on who decides that profits are too high, and what level of profits is deemed acceptable).

[vogues157]

If most of the time politicians served the will of the people, I would agree with you. However, in this day and age politicians are serving the will of the corporations that get them elected and not the people. It might of worked 40 years ago, but not so much today.

[Flexwave2003]

Leaving aside such pesky little details like market efficiencies, maybe it has to do with the fact that we realize that we don't operate under a democracy, but rather a representative republic

Good post, agreed.

[TheMMAn]

Originally Posted by Flexwave2003

Good post, agreed.

i'll have to admit that i've agreed with some of your posts recently.

What is happening to the universe?

[kingstu]

Originally Posted by Ultimo Hombre

When citizens in a democracy elect someone to tax Exxon-Mobile and use that extra tax money to subsidize alternative energy sources- that is consumers in a market making decisions about that market- we are just using our political mechanisms to acheive our end. What's the problem with this?

The problem is economists call this “rent seeking” and it has absolutely nothing to do with “the market.”

Market – buyers and sellers VOLUNTARILY engage in mutually beneficial transactions.

Rent Seeking - an individual, organization or firm seeks to make money by manipulating the economic and/or legal environment rather than by trade and production of wealth.

In a market there would be no need to tax Exxon and give the money to alternative energy companies because consumers would choose the best form of energy for them. In this case...this choice has obviously been gasoline for the past 100 years or so.

[Ultimo Hombre]

Originally Posted by TheMMAn

Politicians will pander to the electorate by demonizing oil companies for doing exactly what they are supposed to do, maximize profitability.

They underplay facts like oil companies are actually publically owned by millions of people all over the world. They play on the public's ignorance of fungible commodities in a global market, the effects on prices by demand coming from emerging markets like China and India. They arbitrarily assert that oil companies are making too much money, and decide to increase taxes and burdens on Big Oil.

).

1-When oil was $20 a barrel in the 90's, and Big Oil wasn't so big, how do you think they maintained opperations and paid their executives millions of dollars a year? SUBSIDIES!! They cried for, and got, our tax money to keep them afloat. Not very big Capitalists back then, huh? Now that oil is $120 a barrel all the profit they make is theirs? PUUULEASE!!! Also, we are STILL SUBSIDIZING THOSE MUTHERFUCKERS so this idea that the $20B Exxon makes every 4 months should be theirs and all theirs is fucking ridiculous.

2- The wants/needs of a few million people who own shares for profit is more important and should trump the wants and needs of 300M citizens? No thanks. I disagree. The few people who own shares can actually suck cock and play by OUR rules, not the other way around.

US Constitution > WTO Guidlines IMO...

Besides, somebody has to make a move to quit funding Saudi Arabia and other OPEC nations. Everytime you and I pump gas those rag head fundy's get richer and richer. This has to end, and Big Oil isn't going to spearhead a transition to renewable/alternative energy (something most americans citizens/consumers want), so we Americans are going to use politics to acheive this. Obama has said he will raise tax on Big Oil and use the proceeds to fund American businesses who are developing new sources of energy. I have no problem with this. No problem what so ever.

Of course you might say that I only want a renewable energy infrastructure, and choose to tax profitable corporations to acheive this, because I'm brainwashed by lobbyists and their owned politicians, but on the same hand I could say you support Big Oils profit machine and "market efficiencies" because you're brainwashed by marketing, commercials and right-wing think tank efforts.

[Ultimo Hombre]

Originally Posted by kingstu

Market – buyers and sellers VOLUNTARILY engage in mutually beneficial transactions.

.

No such thing. If this truely existed then Corporations would not spend more on marketing (brainwashing) then creating new products and services. Transactions are hardly mutually beneficial. Sellers try to create an ILLUSION that there is a mutual benefit- and the Buyer must, indeed, beware. We consumer/citizens sometimes like to use our Democracy to, indeed, make this so-called market mutually beneficial.

People like you hate this because when consumers empower themselves through being politically active citizens- it makes it hard for you to maximize profit by keeping the consumer ignorant and shelling out snake oil.

[Ultimo Hombre]

Originally Posted by vogues157

If most of the time politicians served the will of the people, I would agree with you. However, in this day and age politicians are serving the will of the corporations that get them elected and not the people. It might of worked 40 years ago, but not so much today.

Of course, when our Democracy gets polluted by "industry stooges" who infiltrate our government to rig the game for their industry, we citizens lose our power. This corruption has got to end for sure- but I guess I believe that Obama might not be a total scumbag like most of them.

Bill Tauzin, who was a Republican congressmen from Louisiana is the archtype of this type of corruption. He worked tirelessly to get Bush's persciption drug plan passed (a plan that helps Big Pharma make more money- rather than help old people get affordable meds)- and the week after the bill passed, Tauzin quit his job as a Congressmen and went to work for Big Pharma.

In order for us citizens to truely utilize our political mechanisms to affect change in the market, we must seek these scumbags out and kill them in their sleep.

[Ultimo Hombre]

Originally Posted by kingstu

In a market there would be no need to tax Exxon and give the money to alternative energy companies because consumers would choose the best form of energy for them. In this case...this choice has obviously been gasoline for the past 100 years or so.

We consumers/citizens have decided the best form of energy (renewables: wind, solar, geothermal), and we also decided that we do not have a current infrastructure in place to harness and use them- so we are deciding to take money from the current regime to fund these energy forms.

What's the problem here?

You really think that all of the industries that rely on oil for profit (Big Oil, Big Auto), haven't rigged the game for the past 100 years so that nothing could supplant them? A patent for a car that runs on water was created 75 years ago. That was bought by Big Oil and burned. The game is rigged, son. There is no "market". It's all a shell game.