Ike's Excellent Post ( borrowed from Cafe Hayek)

MUIRGEO:

It is time for you to confront a central assumption. It is clear from this statement:

"Trade needs to be set up to benefit people first and not CEO's of banks and multinational corporations."

That you somehow believe there is no correlation between the actions of a powerful government and the actions of corporations.

ANY intervention that you allow a government to take, NO MATTER how noble you believe that purpose to be, EMPOWERS the government. The centralized collection of that power emboldens bureaucracy, and makes it a greater target for legislation and lobbying.

When government attempts to coerce businesses and individuals to trade in unnatural manners, it CREATES A MARKET FOR INFLUENCE.

All of your assumptions about "what government ought do" are based on a fallacy of a universal agent of good, who is beyond corruption. By creating a market for influence, you challenge three different classes of agents to alter policy:

1) Corporations, who do in fact have collective muscle and resources to look out for the interests of owners, stakeholders and employees. Because much of American tax policy places corporations in the position of being a Tax Collection Agency at the expense of individuals, the more your central government leans on corporations THE MORE INFLUENTIAL AND POWERFUL THEY BECOME, because they pass the real tariffs and costs to individuals.

2) Individuals, who are essentially powerless. Few have the resources or time allocation available to lobby on their own behalf, unless they are so empowered by positions within corporations. They power of the vote is too little, too removed, and not often enough to act as a meaningful signal in the Marketplace of Influence.

3) Government. Every time the government steps in and creates an unnatural barrier to trade, it creates inefficiencies. It also emboldens and empowers government further.

So -- we have corporations and government both in the same position in the Marketplace of Influence. When Government increases power, BOTH corporations and government gain.

Your incorrect premise about the nature of the Influence Markets is that Government is a "tool" of corporations, and each operates in a vacuum. Clearly, since FDR and the New Deal, the Federal Government has embarked on a long love-affair with corporatism, trying to align entire industries for some desired purpose or another. And in those instances where whole economic sectors "fight back," the only entities that gain in influence are Government and Corporations.

Posted by: Ike | Apr 25, 2009 12:46:04 PM

S Andrews off topic question

I "know" you "weigh" both sides of the argument. If that is the case, you must have some points of agreement with the Cafe on matters relating to economics. List a few of those. If you can't come up with it, I would have to call your bluff: I will have to conclude that you have a prejudiced mind, your mind is made up and is not open to any new ideas or thoughts. Let's take it from there.

Posted by: S Andrews

I agree;

That we should minimize government waste and regulation to those things shown to be effecient and necassary.

I agree that the tax code should be massively simplified

I agree that competitive capitalistic markets are the best way to run an economy

I think drugs should be legal

I think there is a good case to be made (still on the fence) to reduce the roll of the federal government and allow states to make their own rules

I think (still on the fence) Don and Russ may be right that the bail outs are a bad idea.

Yucatan Trading