PDA

View Full Version : The Left Right Paradigm is Over: Its You vs. Corporations




Anti Federalist
09-27-2010, 01:59 PM
The Left Right Paradigm is Over: Its You vs. Corporations

By Barry Ritholtz - September 27th, 2010, 9:30AM

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/09/you-vs-corporations/

Every generation or so, a major secular shift takes place that shakes up the existing paradigm. It happens in industry, finance, literature, sports, manufacturing, technology, entertainment, travel, communication, etc.

I would like to discuss the paradigm shift that is occurring in politics.

For a long time, American politics has been defined by a Left/Right dynamic. It was Liberals versus Conservatives on a variety of issues. Pro-Life versus Pro-Choice, Tax Cuts vs. More Spending, Pro-War vs Peaceniks, Environmental Protections vs. Economic Growth, Pro-Union vs. Union-Free, Gay Marriage vs. Family Values, School Choice vs. Public Schools, Regulation vs. Free Markets.

The new dynamic, however, has moved past the old Left Right paradigm. We now live in an era defined by increasing Corporate influence and authority over the individual. These two “interest groups” – I can barely suppress snorting derisively over that phrase – have been on a headlong collision course for decades, which came to a head with the financial collapse and bailouts. Where there is massive concentrations of wealth and influence, there will be abuse of power. The Individual has been supplanted in the political process nearly entirely by corporate money, legislative influence, campaign contributions, even free speech rights.

This may not be a brilliant insight, but it is surely an overlooked one. It is now an Individual vs. Corporate debate – and the Humans are losing.

Consider:

• Many of the regulations that govern energy and banking sector were written by Corporations;

• The biggest influence on legislative votes is often Corporate Lobbying;

• Corporate ability to extend copyright far beyond what original protections amounts to a taking of public works for private corporate usage;

• PAC and campaign finance by Corporations has supplanted individual donations to elections;

• The individuals’ right to seek redress in court has been under attack for decades, limiting their options.

• DRM and content protection undercuts the individual’s ability to use purchased content as they see fit;

• Patent protections are continually weakened. Deep pocketed corporations can usurp inventions almost at will;

• The Supreme Court has ruled that Corporations have Free Speech rights equivalent to people; (So much for original intent!)

None of these are Democrat/Republican conflicts, but rather, are corporate vs. individual issues.

For those of you who are stuck in the old Left/Right debate, you are missing the bigger picture. Consider this about the Bailouts: It was a right-winger who bailed out all of the big banks, Fannie Mae, and AIG in the first place; then his left winger successor continued to pour more money into the fire pit.

What difference did the Left/Right dynamic make? Almost none whatsoever.

How about government spending? The past two presidents are regarded as representative of the Left Right paradigm – yet they each spent excessively, sponsored unfunded tax cuts, plowed money into military adventures and ran enormous deficits. Does Left Right really make a difference when it comes to deficits and fiscal responsibility? (Apparently not).

What does it mean when we can no longer distinguish between the actions of the left and the right? If that dynamic no longer accurately distinguishes what occurs, why are so many of our policy debates framed in Left/Right terms?

In many ways, American society is increasingly less married to this dynamic: Party Affiliation continues to fall, approval of Congress is at record lows, and voter participation hovers at very low rates.

There is some pushback already taking place against the concentration of corporate power: Mainstream corporate media has been increasingly replaced with user created content – YouTube and Blogs are increasingly important to news consumers (especially younger users). Independent voters are an increasingly larger share of the US electorate. And I suspect that much of the pushback against the Elizabeth Warren’s concept of a Financial Consumer Protection Agency plays directly into this Corporate vs. Individual fight.

But the battle lines between the two groups have barely been drawn. I expect this fight will define American politics over the next decade.

Keynes vs Hayek? Friedman vs Krugman? Those are the wrong intellectual debates. Its you vs. Tony Hayward, BP CEO, You vs. Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman Sachs CEO. And you are losing . . .

MN Patriot
09-27-2010, 03:47 PM
What about the two party paradigm? When will that dissolve and third parties become relevant? I know, the political pundits will tell us that we absolutely MUST support one or the other of the two parties, since we have a winner take all system.

If there is no clear difference between the Left-Right anymore, it seems now would be the time for a libertarian type of political party to become prominent and replace one of the old parties, who will then represent corporate fascism.

forsmant
09-27-2010, 04:13 PM
Nice article. Corporate control of the government is the cause of all the problems we have today.

Epic
09-27-2010, 04:30 PM
Terrible article. Government is the reason why corporations are any sort of problem.

Plus:


Patent protections are continually weakened. Deep pocketed corporations can usurp inventions almost at will;

Uhh, no, crazy patent laws benefit the big businesses like Monsanto. These draconian systems always benefit the big boys with the economies of scale.

pcosmar
09-27-2010, 04:34 PM
What about the two party paradigm? When will that dissolve and third parties become relevant? I know, the political pundits will tell us that we absolutely MUST support one or the other of the two parties, since we have a winner take all system.

If there is no clear difference between the Left-Right anymore, it seems now would be the time for a libertarian type of political party to become prominent and replace one of the old parties, who will then represent corporate fascism.

You don't get it. Third party is not an option.
The Left/Right or R/D are only there to give the illusion of choice. Not any real choice.
If you keep demanding something different then they will have no choice but to end the illusion.

They will stop pretending you have any rights at all.
:(

lynnf
09-27-2010, 04:37 PM
we need to limit the rights granted to corporations by charter so that a corporation is less than a real person. otherwise they will crush us. these Frankenstein monsters have ruled the roost for far too long.

lynn

awake
09-27-2010, 04:50 PM
Terrible article. Government is the reason why corporations are any sort of problem.

Plus:



Uhh, no, crazy patent laws benefit the big businesses like Monsanto. These draconian systems always benefit the big boys with the economies of scale.


DING, DING, DING!

Stories that are written like this let the root of the problem go unnoticed. It would have been better if the author focused on all those who use the state to pillage their neighbor.

ChaosControl
09-27-2010, 04:51 PM
Yes. Corporatism is the true enemy. The sooner people realize this the better. The rest of the issues can be left to the local communities so that our differences don't divide us like they do now.

awake
09-27-2010, 04:59 PM
Yes. Corporatism is the true enemy. The sooner people realize this the better. The rest of the issues can be left to the local communities so that our differences don't divide us like they do now.

With out the monopoly that the state has, how can it even exist? focusing on the corporations is like focusing on the individuals who ask their representatives for more welfare, guarantees, bailouts and 'other peoples money' programs... your swinging at the symptom not the cause.

Its a convenient distraction.

Anti Federalist
09-27-2010, 05:32 PM
Corporate tyranny is just as bad as government tyranny.

I have no desire to live in a modern day "Rochester", forced to live in company housing, getting paid in company scrip, forced to shop at the company store and attend the company church.

sofia
09-27-2010, 05:48 PM
It's the PRC vs WEP.


Predatory Ruling Class vs We The People

Sola_Fide
09-27-2010, 06:00 PM
I can't agree with the article man.


The argument should be the people vs. corporatism, not the people vs. corporations. The problem is government, not the market.

forsmant
09-27-2010, 06:10 PM
Corporations are a creature of government. What are you people not getting?

heavenlyboy34
09-27-2010, 06:28 PM
Corporations are a creature of government. What are you people not getting?

Have you read Block and Huebert's "Defending Corporations (http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block-huebert_defending-corporations-2009.pdf)"? It may change your mind. Though it's been very common in history for corporations to be created by regimes, it is possible for them to arise from the free market. In fact, Mises said that the free market will be officially destroyed when the stock market ceases to exist (or something to that effect, I'm a little rusty).

This is not to defend the existing system, but that the corporate structure is possible in a free market (it is, after all, just a unique business structure).

P.S. If you oppose corporations in general, you would also have to oppose the Constitution, as it is a Corporate Charter for the States.

forsmant
09-27-2010, 06:36 PM
I don't oppose them in general. I oppose their superior ranking and limited liability in the eyes of the law. That and the revolving door between them and the government regulators and legislatures.

But to say I am missing the point because I don't like corporatism is wrong. I know very well the problems of today. Once people realize that the cor[prate control of the government is what this article is talking about then maybe they will understand. Sure he didn't specifically say that in the article but by calling them an interest group I thought it was implied. Also since left right is a political paradigm I was under the assumption the article was talking about government control as exercised b y the opposing "interests".