An analysis of the recent Supreme Court ruling

[JayB]

"Economic activity isn't evil. Controlling political outcomes to enhance one's economic activity to the detriment of the great unwashed masses is however evil."

 

Glad to hear that you've finally come around. Looking forward to seeing your posts against tariffs, subsidies, and all of the other impediments to competition that Congress has erected on behalf of politically well connected interest groups.

[tvashtarkatena]

"Economic activity isn't evil. Controlling political outcomes to enhance one's economic activity to the detriment of the great unwashed masses is however evil."

 

Glad to hear that you've finally come around. Looking forward to seeing your posts against tariffs, subsidies, and all of the other impediments to competition that Congress has erected on behalf of politically well connected interest groups.

 

Commerce is your bag. I'm a free speech kind of guy.

[j_b]

"finally come around" what? I have always promoted sustainable economic activity (sustainable both environmentally and socially).

 

My guess is that my count of anti corporate welfare posts beats yours 100:1.

[JayB]

"finally come around" what? I have always promoted sustainable economic activity (sustainable both environmentally and socially).

 

My guess is that my count of anti corporate welfare posts beats yours 100:1.

 

"Controlling political outcomes to enhance one's economic activity" covers quite a bit more than plain ole corporate welfare, kemosabe.

 

Unless you add a few caveats that make allowances for ag subsides, protectionism in all of its guises, the aptly named "Davis-Bacon" Act, etc, etc, etc,

[prole]

In general, this ruling opens up several avenues for a more participatory democracy; for labor unions, for non-profits, and yes, for for-profit corporations...right on down to the mom and pop grocery store down the street. As 80% of Americans are employed by companies of under 25 people, this ruling may well provide an effective antidote for the kind of political apathy so often lamented by progressives. If that greater participation happens through the vehicle of one's garage shop business, so be it. I'm for it.

 

Interesting that you use mom and pop groceries as an example here. Can't wait to see their Super Bowl commercials next year!

 

Wal-Mart widens political reach, giving primarily to GOP

By Jim Hopkins, USA TODAY 2/2/04

Wal-Mart (WMT), the USA's biggest company, is beefing up in a new area: politics.

 

It has rocketed to No. 2 among top campaign givers in the 2004 federal elections. Four years ago, it didn't rank in the top 100, says the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan watchdog group.

 

Republican candidates are the big winners in this year's election. They received about 85% of the company's contributions, including those of its political action committee, employees and children of founder Sam Walton.

 

Wal-Mart's rise is significant because of the impact it might have on congressional debates about health care, labor and other hot-button regulatory issues, says Larry Noble, the center's executive director. "They're clearly making a move," he says.

 

The company has more than $250 billion in annual revenue. (No. 2 is General Motors, with $187 billion in annual revenue.) Wal-Mart is also the USA's biggest private employer, with 1.2 million workers.

 

But unions say Wal-Mart's push to keep costs low is driving thousands of factory jobs overseas. It's facing a potentially costly sex discrimination lawsuit from female workers. Plus, a federal grand jury is investigating claims that Wal-Mart cleaning companies used illegal immigrants.

 

Wal-Mart denies the sex discrimination claims. It says it is innocent in the case of illegal immigrants. Still, the growing criticism has tarnished the company's image, and helped spur its leap into Washington. "Our voice wasn't there to be heard," says company spokesman Jay Allen.

 

It's now being heard through:

 

•Campaign donations. Wal-Mart's political action committee and employees have given about $1 million in the 2004 elections so far — almost entirely to congressional candidates. Just $5,000 went to President Bush, and none to Democrats seeking the White House — a trend underscored Monday in campaign finance data released by the center. Bush's No. 1 donor to date: Merrill Lynch's (MER) PAC and employees. They gave $432,104 of the $132 million Bush raised. Wal-Mart gives to pro-business candidates, without expectations, Allen says. "There are no quid pro quos," he says.

 

Walton's children are big givers, too. Wal-Mart Chairman Rob Walton last year gave $25,000 to the National Republican Congressional Committee. His brother, John Walton, gave more than $150,000 to Republican causes since 2000. Their sister, Alice Walton, gave more than $100,000 in the same period.

 

•Lobbying. Wal-Mart has five staff lobbyists in Washington — up from one when it opened its office there in 1999.--from here.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

Interesting that you use mom and pop groceries as an example here. Can't wait to see their Super Bowl commercials next year!

 

 

Who dat?

[JayB]

In general, this ruling opens up several avenues for a more participatory democracy; for labor unions, for non-profits, and yes, for for-profit corporations...right on down to the mom and pop grocery store down the street. As 80% of Americans are employed by companies of under 25 people, this ruling may well provide an effective antidote for the kind of political apathy so often lamented by progressives. If that greater participation happens through the vehicle of one's garage shop business, so be it. I'm for it.

 

Interesting that you use mom and pop groceries as an example here. Can't wait to see their Super Bowl commercials next year!

 

Wal-Mart widens political reach, giving primarily to GOP

By Jim Hopkins, USA TODAY 2/2/04

Wal-Mart (WMT), the USA's biggest company, is beefing up in a new area: politics.

 

It has rocketed to No. 2 among top campaign givers in the 2004 federal elections. Four years ago, it didn't rank in the top 100, says the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan watchdog group.

 

Republican candidates are the big winners in this year's election. They received about 85% of the company's contributions, including those of its political action committee, employees and children of founder Sam Walton.

 

Wal-Mart's rise is significant because of the impact it might have on congressional debates about health care, labor and other hot-button regulatory issues, says Larry Noble, the center's executive director. "They're clearly making a move," he says.

 

The company has more than $250 billion in annual revenue. (No. 2 is General Motors, with $187 billion in annual revenue.) Wal-Mart is also the USA's biggest private employer, with 1.2 million workers.

 

But unions say Wal-Mart's push to keep costs low is driving thousands of factory jobs overseas. It's facing a potentially costly sex discrimination lawsuit from female workers. Plus, a federal grand jury is investigating claims that Wal-Mart cleaning companies used illegal immigrants.

 

Wal-Mart denies the sex discrimination claims. It says it is innocent in the case of illegal immigrants. Still, the growing criticism has tarnished the company's image, and helped spur its leap into Washington. "Our voice wasn't there to be heard," says company spokesman Jay Allen.

 

It's now being heard through:

 

•Campaign donations. Wal-Mart's political action committee and employees have given about $1 million in the 2004 elections so far — almost entirely to congressional candidates. Just $5,000 went to President Bush, and none to Democrats seeking the White House — a trend underscored Monday in campaign finance data released by the center. Bush's No. 1 donor to date: Merrill Lynch's (MER) PAC and employees. They gave $432,104 of the $132 million Bush raised. Wal-Mart gives to pro-business candidates, without expectations, Allen says. "There are no quid pro quos," he says.

 

Walton's children are big givers, too. Wal-Mart Chairman Rob Walton last year gave $25,000 to the National Republican Congressional Committee. His brother, John Walton, gave more than $150,000 to Republican causes since 2000. Their sister, Alice Walton, gave more than $100,000 in the same period.

 

•Lobbying. Wal-Mart has five staff lobbyists in Washington — up from one when it opened its office there in 1999.--from here.

 

Sweet! One more reason to shop at Wallmart. Come for the bargains, stay for the schadenfreude...

[j_b]

"finally come around" what? I have always promoted sustainable economic activity (sustainable both environmentally and socially).

 

My guess is that my count of anti corporate welfare posts beats yours 100:1.

 

"Controlling political outcomes to enhance one's economic activity" covers quite a bit more than plain ole corporate welfare, kemosabe.

 

Unless you add a few caveats that make allowances for ag subsides, protectionism in all of its guises, the aptly named "Davis-Bacon" Act, etc, etc, etc,

 

Except in right wingers' very vivid imagination, trade unions and other citizens' associations do not buy political influence in any appreciable way. The influence yielded by non-corporate associations pales in comparison to the influence of corporate money in politics.

 

I am not against subsidies per se. A mixed economy is the only sensible way to address the challenges of the future. Fair trade, which also accounts for social and environmental costs, isn't protectionism but the way to make sure local economies aren't destroyed by pillagers.

[prole]

[font:Arial Black]BLASPHEMER!!![/font]

[JayB]

"finally come around" what? I have always promoted sustainable economic activity (sustainable both environmentally and socially).

 

My guess is that my count of anti corporate welfare posts beats yours 100:1.

 

"Controlling political outcomes to enhance one's economic activity" covers quite a bit more than plain ole corporate welfare, kemosabe.

 

Unless you add a few caveats that make allowances for ag subsides, protectionism in all of its guises, the aptly named "Davis-Bacon" Act, etc, etc, etc,

 

Except in right wingers' very vivid imagination, trade unions and other citizens' associations do not buy political influence in any appreciable way. The influence yielded by non-corporate associations pales in comparison to the influence of corporate money in politics.

 

I am not against subsidies per se. A mixed economy is the only sensible way to address the challenges of the future. Fair trade, which also accounts for social and environmental costs, isn't protectionism but the way to make sure local economies aren't destroyed by pillagers.

 

No political influence in any appreciable way? Tell that to GM bondholders! Davis-Bacon, prevailing wage contracts, longshoremen controlling ports, public sector compensation packages, mandatory carve-outs for unions on public works projects, etc, etc, etc, etc constitute quite a laundry list of accomplishments for folks with no influence on policy....

 

Why not leave it to consumers to determine who is and who isn't a pillager, and make their purchases accordingly, instead of having the government make that decision for them and thereby leave the door open to the abuses that you cite above.

 

There's plenty of folks out there that voluntarily pay more for their coffee, produce, clothing, meat, etc, etc, etc, precisely because of the manner in which it was produced. They did so without the alternatives being banned, outlawed, or being subject to punitive taxation intended to tip their hand. As a matter of fact - they did so despite massive ag subsidies, etc designed to tip their hands in the opposite direction.

 

 

[prole]

Sweet! One more reason to shop at Wallmart. Come for the bargains, stay for the schadenfreude...

 

I shop there because sometimes I have to. I stay because Walmart's so enlightening as the Reaganite equivalent of a Hogarth engraving.

 

[JayB]

Sweet! One more reason to shop at Wallmart. Come for the bargains, stay for the schadenfreude...

 

I shop there because sometimes I have to. I stay because Walmart's so enlightening as the Reaganite equivalent of a Hogarth engraving.

 

 

Looks like downtown Detroit circa 2010. Look for the union label!

 

BTW - "sometimes you have to?" Please explain....

[prole]

Looks like downtown Detroit circa 2010. Look for the union label!

 

Weren't you the let-it-all-burn, looking forward to paddling my kayak through the ruins, unleash the cleansing fires of creative destruction shitbird from a year ago? Weren't you the asshole who said it would be the equivalent of a mortal sin for Detroit to produce anything but SUVs and gasguzzling trucks if that's what the market was indicating? Hear this Jay: Fuck you. Don't ever address me on this board again.

[JayB]

Looks like downtown Detroit circa 2010. Look for the union label!

 

Weren't you the let-it-all-burn, looking forward to paddling my kayak through the ruins, unleash the cleansing fires of creative destruction shitbird from a year ago? Weren't you the asshole who said it would be the equivalent of a mortal sin for Detroit to produce anything but SUVs and gasguzzling trucks if that's what the market was indicating? Hear this Jay: Fuck you. Don't ever address me on this board again.

 

At the risk of running afoul of your admonition...it was indeed me kayaking through the industrial wasteland brought about by folks who thought it was a great idea to force employers to pay wages that exceeded their marginal productivity. That - and the opening of the plains pretty well anihilated the economic base up there and demography followed suit. Been great for the environment - though. The northeast is now so heavily wooded that old folks who left as children apparently have a hard time orienting themselves in the landscape outside of town. Or at least that's what a guy running a B&B in Vermont told me one morning....

 

And yes - the US auto policy is retarded. If you're constructing policy it makes sense to structure the incentives so that consumers want the sorts of cars that the policy goals call for.

[j_b]

No political influence in any appreciable way? Tell that to GM bondholders! Davis-Bacon, prevailing wage contracts, longshoremen controlling ports, public sector compensation packages, mandatory carve-outs for unions on public works projects, etc, etc, etc, etc constitute quite a laundry list of accomplishments for folks with no influence on policy....

 

Why not leave it to consumers to determine who is and who isn't a pillager, and make their purchases accordingly, instead of having the government make that decision for them and thereby leave the door open to the abuses that you cite above.

 

There's plenty of folks out there that voluntarily pay more for their coffee, produce, clothing, meat, etc, etc, etc, precisely because of the manner in which it was produced. They did so without the alternatives being banned, outlawed, or being subject to punitive taxation intended to tip their hand. As a matter of fact - they did so despite massive ag subsidies, etc designed to tip their hands in the opposite direction.

 

 

I didn't say they had no influence. I said they didn't "buy influence in any appreciable way". Their influence on processes is much less than what should be expected from the contribution of the constituencies they represent.

 

How does being subject to constant commercial propadanda (often misleading advertising) constitute "leaving it to consumers to make up their own mind"? I am not sure what fantasy you live in.

[rob]

jesus christ, is this thing still going? Haven't you guys figured it out yet? The whole world is waiting.

[JayB]

No political influence in any appreciable way? Tell that to GM bondholders! Davis-Bacon, prevailing wage contracts, longshoremen controlling ports, public sector compensation packages, mandatory carve-outs for unions on public works projects, etc, etc, etc, etc constitute quite a laundry list of accomplishments for folks with no influence on policy....

 

Why not leave it to consumers to determine who is and who isn't a pillager, and make their purchases accordingly, instead of having the government make that decision for them and thereby leave the door open to the abuses that you cite above.

 

There's plenty of folks out there that voluntarily pay more for their coffee, produce, clothing, meat, etc, etc, etc, precisely because of the manner in which it was produced. They did so without the alternatives being banned, outlawed, or being subject to punitive taxation intended to tip their hand. As a matter of fact - they did so despite massive ag subsidies, etc designed to tip their hands in the opposite direction.

 

 

I didn't say they had no influence. I said they didn't "buy influence in any appreciable way". Their influence on processes is much less than what should be expected from the contribution of the constituencies they represent.

 

How does being subject to constant commercial propadanda (often misleading advertising) constitute "leaving it to consumers to make up their own mind"? I am not sure what fantasy you live in.

 

How does your consumer-zombie model account for the sales of fair-trade coffee, free-range meats and eggs, microbrews, the proliferation of cheeses other than the neon yellow stuff in cellophane wrappings, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. It's surely not their superior marketing budgets.

[tvashtarkatena]

Even a mom and pop grocery can afford to make and run a YouTube ad. Times are changing.

[Jim]

Even a mom and pop grocery can afford to make and run a YouTube ad. Times are changing.

 

And they will be comforted to know that they can have the same influence as say, Bank of America, influencing their local congressional race.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

BTW - "sometimes you have to?" Please explain....

 

Where else can you buy a $40 pup tent which is functionally equivalent to a Hilleberg?

[j_b]

How does your consumer-zombie model account for the sales of fair-trade coffee, free-range meats and eggs, microbrews, the proliferation of cheeses other than the neon yellow stuff in cellophane wrappings, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. It's surely not their superior marketing budgets.

 

The existence of other influences (tradition, counter-culture, ..) doesn't invalidate the observation that trillions are spent in advertising just to mold consumer wants and needs.

[ivan]

The existence of other influences (tradition, counter-culture, ..) doesn't invalidate the observation that trillions are spent in advertising just to mold consumer wants and needs.

as well as giving folks a job and cc.com sponsers?

[tvashtarkatena]

Even a mom and pop grocery can afford to make and run a YouTube ad. Times are changing.

 

And they will be comforted to know that they can have the same influence as say, Bank of America, influencing their local congressional race.

 

Macaca!

[JayB]

How does your consumer-zombie model account for the sales of fair-trade coffee, free-range meats and eggs, microbrews, the proliferation of cheeses other than the neon yellow stuff in cellophane wrappings, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. It's surely not their superior marketing budgets.

 

The existence of other influences (tradition, counter-culture, ..) doesn't invalidate the observation that trillions are spent in advertising just to mold consumer wants and needs.

 

But it does invalidate your claim that zombie-consumers need the government to neutralize the effects of advertising and dictate what kind of corn chips they should be allowed to buy...

[j_b]

Terrible logic, in addition to blatant mischaracterization of what I stand for. Corporate tools like yourself should come up with better arguments in lieu of pretending trillions are spent in advertising to no effect.