"Free" market capitalism = bad public policy

[welshTerrier2]

let's just take one example: SUV's ...

consumers seem to want SUV's ... at least they have wanted them over the last 20 years or so ...

good policy? bad policy?

well, to start with, we clearly have a major problem with global warming ... but, of course, many republicans don't accept the idea of global warming ... George Will, the pompous right-wing windbag likes to point out that global cooling was predicted by scientists back in the 70's so global warming is just more scientific hysteria ... George doesn't seem to allow the possibility that, just because a few scientists were wrong 30 years ago, the overwhelming majority of them are right today ... if a weatherman who screwed up yesterday's forecast tells you a tornado is heading your way, do you just ignore him?

and then there's the little problem with dependence on foreign oil ... even the republicans are forced to acknowledge this problem ... we burn way too much gasoline in our cars, especially our big honking, gas-guzzling, arrogant SUV's ...

now, perhaps when gas is $5. a gallon, the market will eventually react and stop buying those automotive dinosaurs ... but how does it help America and Americans to have imported so much oil for so many years? what has it cost this country, and world peace, to keep unconscious and unconscionable Americans "up high" so they can look down on the rest of us???

when advertisers are able to manipulate markets and stimulate demand for gas-guzzling behemoths and the federal government does nothing to discourage unnecessary consumption of fuel, the "free" market produces nothing but bad policy ... the right loves to refer to "business regulation" as socialism ... if by socialism they mean policies that put people before profits and American interests before corporate interests, i'm glad to accept the label ... "free" market capitalism means that we should let those pursuing maximum profits define the policies ... with that definition, war can be "good" (for business); pollution can be "good" (for business); shipping jobs overseas can be "good" (for business); massive federal deficits to pay for corporate welfare can be "good" (for business), eliminating class action lawsuits can be "good" (for business), wiping our workers' pensions can be "good" (for business) and an out-of-control auto industry that leads to a heavy dependence on foreign oil imports can be "good" (for business) ...

the left does NOT need to be anti-business ... there is nothing wrong with trying to maximize profits AS LONG AS BUSINESS IS REGULATED and the best interests of the American people are being served ... if business is left too "free", it will serve its own interests and not the best interests of the American society ... "free" market capitalism is bad public policy ...

[ananda]

1. The only problem is..

.. that here in Houston I have to drive a vehicle that can go through flooded streets sometimes. Cars aren't high enough.

I do plan to buy a hybrid SUV next time, though.

Sue

[NorCalDem]

3. SUV's for people who need them,

like Park services, people in regions that gets floods or heavy snow, etc. should be able to buy SUV's. They're great automobiles designed for off-road conditions, and if that's what you're using it for, I have NO PROBLEM with you owning an SUV. It's even better if you can get a hybrid one.

That being said, yuppies living in Malibu driving their Escalade through city streets and guzzling gas is absolutely obsessive and ridiculous!

Good luck with those floods :D

[welshTerrier2]

4. lots of justifications but things must be changed

and soccer moms tell me they can't fit all the kids they need to carpool into ordinary cars ...

and others tell me "those little cars" just aren't safe ... well, they sure aren't any safer with those view blocking monsters on the road ...

the problem is, that flooded streets need to be redesigned so that more efficient cars can ride on them ... if the streets are flooded, the engineering needs to be reviewed ... and what did people do before there were SUV's? ... and where's the push for better mass transit?

the bottom line is that inefficient use of fuel cannot continue ...

i would like to see all SUV's classified as trucks ... in Massachusetts, where i live, trucks are prohibited from the left lane on many of the state's highways ... cram those view-blockers over to the slow lanes and i think we'd quickly find that many people don't need their fuel wasters quite as much as they proclaim ...

and then, while we're at it, let's have a special SUV pump at gas stations with much higher prices ... just because you can afford to pay for your gas when you only get 20 (15?) mile-per-gallon doesn't make it right ... people are dying to fetch you more oil ... the least you could do is chip in for a few veterans' benefits ... and maybe we could take a few of your hard earned dollars to start dealing with global warming ...

my point is NOT that no one has a legitimate need for a larger, fuel inefficient vehicle ... my point is that most do NOT and even those who do rarely weigh the consequences of their actions ...

[bettyellen]

7. i love ther idea of keeping them out of the left lane.....

they are every bit as dangerous as trucks.

[welshTerrier2]

9. in MA, they are classified as trucks ...

i think this was done to allow them to get around emission regulations (or possibly certain passenger vehicle safety regulations - not sure) ...

but, of course, they made an exception for SUV's when it came to the left lane restrictions ... then, suddenly, they are no longer treated like trucks ...

[cajones_II]

8. I hear that re Houston

I had a raced out Corvette that was about 6" off the ground; the front spoiler clearance was more like 3".

After a particularly bad storm, I literally tore the front spoiler off trying to get through the 3' high water on the highway near near Tomball.

Houston is no place for racecars.

Damn, it rains a lot there.

[killbotfactory]

2. It is illegal for corporations to put people above their own profits

Yes, ILLEGAL. It is enshrined in law that they must put their company above all other interests. It is literally INSANE to not regulate them, and just let them run amok without oversight.

[welshTerrier2]

5. un-democratic and un-American

i agree with your comment that the very charter of corporations is to put the interests of the stockholders (a fiduciary relationship) above the interests of the public and the country ...

that, in and of itself, in a so-called democratic society is INSANE ... even before the degree of regulation is assessed, what kind of society would permit such a potent force within it that, by definition, is antagonist to the bests interests of the country?

"free" market capitalism has been established by the right as a higher ideal than American democracy ... we are sabotaging our own institutions and putting our Constitutional freedoms and our representative form of government at risk ...

how "free" should business be?

the right answer is that business should be as free as possible AFTER the best interests of the American people are served ...

[applegrove]

6. the free market itself does not work without regulation on transparency,

monopoly, intellectual property, private property. It takes much in the way of police to enforce the laws that allow for a 'free market'. Regulations on emissions, environment, health care, universal health care, taxation, etc. They are all part of the thing. Do you want gas to be available in 20 years? Conserve and get people to switch to renewable sources!

[musiclawyer]

10. "unfettered: captalism will lead to unfettered inequality

and unfettered inequality means being a third world country.....A good democracy is always trying to balance between free markets and regulation. When the balance tilts too far in one direction, you get what we have now. It was the same way 100 years ago, and the progressive movement had to swing ionto action to right things to some extent But being a young country, the USA has still not got it completely right. Kids need to be taught this in school, if this economic insanity is to end.

[Hidden Stillness]

11. Capitalism Is Selfishness; Republican-Conservatism Is Selfishness

The interests of corporations--commercial interests generally--and the public good are just at opposite ends of a spectrum, and usually don't even relate to each other. They are two different groups, and it can't be covered up that the more one side wins, the other side loses. This is why the seeming collapse of everything good about American society and law has come about--so quickly--as soon as there was, and because of, the corporate takeover of government.

As you mentioned at the end of your original post, business "will serve its own interests" and not the general good, and that is the whole point. All you have to do is search anywhere to find the evidence of it. It is all you will find. All they ever lobby for are tax breaks or subsidies for themselves, or to get out of the consequences of a crime they have committed--discrimination, pollution, union-busting, pension raiding, embezzlement, etc., etc. They pay only the minimum wage they are forced to by law, and are constantly trying to repeal those few laws.

While some sociologists study human psychology as an effort to improve social conditions or solve a problem, capitalists study people only so they can manipulate them to buy. Marketing is supposed to exploit people's weaknesses, rather than trying to get rid of them; to increase greed, acquisitiveness, and status-consciousness, to stimulate constant, frivolous buying, with no concern for the effects on society or the individual personality. Advertising attempts to aggravate feelings of inadequacy, and inculcate a kind of "stupidity" that believes that commercial purchases will solve things. They deliberately keep this non-stop propaganda going, that reduces everything to selfishness and a petulant sense of entitlement, that again, is useful for keeping the mind on a train of thought that everything is sales/product/money exchanges.

Their ownership of media has allowed them to broadcast propaganda, unopposed, that has introduced a cold, hard, capitalist attitude to thoughts of poverty and other social issues--What are these people contributing? We can't afford to take care of the poor--What have they ever given me? etc. These horrible attitudes, never so popular before, are common now because of deliberate corporate propaganda, to their ends and against ours as a society. They take media over, never to serve the public, but always, only, to advance themselves and censor all of us. After all, since the capitalist coup of the '80s-'90s and on, has anyone heard a single good thing about taxes, unions, or anything else we once commonsensically appreciated? They are deliberately poisoning our attitudes towards--ourselves, disguised as something else.

What makes all this corporate influence increasingly dangerous is that they have introduced an element of thought to all public/social discourse that is hard to deal with and hard to even answer: a totally selfish approach to things that degenerates thinking itself. If I have a huge SUV that is blocking other people's ability to see, on the road, and is guzzling gas that increasingly, the world will not be able to provide, then the "answer" to that is, "Fuck you." If Democrats are not even allowed to propose bills or amendments on the floors of Congress, are shut out of committee meetings, and have agreed-upon bills suddenly re-written by corporate lobbyists moments before being voted on, then the "answer" to that is, "Ha-ha, asshole." It is a corporate-media-publicized confrontational attitude that gets them what they want at our expense, and does not care even slightly anymore, what it is doing to our society as a whole. The corporate influence and strategy is ripping apart the fabric of our civilized society, and even destroying the whole sense we used to have that we are a people, with a collective history and meaning, apart from buying, selling and employment. They are erasing our feeling of social obligation, good government, and taking care of those who can't, with no demand of payback--and they are intending to. The only thing that will exist eventually, will be the corporation, and its interests.

[welshTerrier2]

12. nice post, Hidden Stillness ...

i agree with all you've written ...

what's most troubling is that the corporate mantra has been assumed not just by the Democratic Party but by many DU'ers as well ...

i've made posts in the past talking about needing to find ways to restrict the influence of big money on the political process ... i've gone along with ideas many Democrats have supported about campaign finance laws and restrictions on lobbyists ...

but i've also argued that, IF those laws fail to solve the problems, then we must consider harsher measures like putting some restrictions on massive wealth ... perhaps this would be via a 100% tax on all assets over some dollar amount so that the super-wealthy would no longer have the resources to manipulate the political process ...

even here on DU, limiting wealth is not very well received ... "you'd be taking away the incentive those people had to make more money and create jobs" ... well, maybe it's a good idea and maybe it isn't but the meme "the super-wealthy are creating jobs is a right-wing talking point" ... and, of course, even these DU'ers had little to offer as an alternative solution ...