Reply With Quote
I'm sorry, did you say something?
No, it's not. In any case, I hope you're now able to understand the error in your reasoning.
I'm sorry, did you say something?
I have no idea who this Stossel guy is and I don't think it's important. If it makes you more comfortable, you can replace "Obama" with the name of some other president and Serious Materials with some other company. It's irrelevant - big government and crony capitalism aren't a creation of this Administration.
The infamous Downing St. memo doesn't help your cause much.
http://downingstreetmemo.com/
"There's only one reason why companies are willing to spend millions sponsoring politicians and not somebody like me:
.... because politicians have favours, public favours, to sell."
wrong, there's SECOND reason your simple mind misses
Corporations have $$$ to contribute to politicians' campaigns, either to elect an official who gives the quid for the pro, or to INTIMIDATE a candidate/office-holder who doesn't play along, threaten/extort him with $$$ to his opponent.
The corps select/elect the candidates they want, having told those candidates what they expect in return.
Yeah, that's exactly my point.
The only reason corporations have interest in interfering with the election of certain candidates is because, as future office-holders, they'd have the power to influence their future.
If they didn't have that power, they simply wouldn't care.
Is that to show bush lied? Yeah no bush was already planning for war. A responsible CIC should be. What about all of CLinton's guys? What about all the intel agencies across the globe? What about all the UN Resolutions? Think how hard it is to get a resolution out of the UN when you aren't Israel. What was it - 12? It's kind of hard to know if Saddam had nukes if he won't let us see.
So now conservatives are concerned about the ties between business and government?
Just when I thought you guys couldn't get any more disingenuous.
mogro pretended to front it. He's a big bull ter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice_theory
The modern literature in Public Choice began with Duncan Black, who in 1948 identified the underlying concepts of what would become median voter theory. He also wrote The Theory of Committees and Elections in 1958. Gordon Tullock[2] refers to him as the "father of public choice theory".
James M. Buchanan and Gordon Tullock coauthored The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Cons utional Democracy (1962), considered one of the landmark works that founded the discipline of public choice theory. In particular (1962, p. v), the book is about the political organization of a free society. But its method, conceptual apparatus, and analytics "are derived, essentially, from the discipline that has as its subject the economic organization of such a society." The book focuses on positive-economic analysis as to the development of cons utional democracy but in an ethical context of consent. The consent takes the form of a compensation principle like Pareto efficiency for making a policy change and unanimity at least no opposition as a point of departure for social choice.
Rerun.
Instead of blasting a new crater, just use the one you already made.
Instead of quoting yourself at length, again, you could just give us the original link.
Politicians and their sponsors:
Common Materials, a company with 150 employees, has Obama in their pocket?
Pardon me, aren't you the guy who said David Axelrod was running the whole show in another thread?
Your bull sucks, dude.
A common mistake is the inability to differentiate ordinary corruption from rent-seeking.
They got a contract or something?
Just go ahead and say whatever you're trying to say dude. Are you making an actual claim here, or is this just another pedantic set piece?
Yet more throat clearing?
Your management of your own threads sucks. You can't even make a simple point without pointing to more academic bs, profe.
But, but, but...
Haliburton no-bid contracts!
Repug Bush lied, people died!
No blood for oil!
WAAAAAHHHHHHHHH
Buchanan (the Nobel Prize, not the former POTUS or the Bircher) wrote that public choice is politics without romance. This is to say that it assumes that the motivations of people in the political arena are no different than those of the people in the church, in the job market, in their family, etc. For example, it assumes that normally politicians make election and re-election (or popularity) their priority.
A corolary of this is that changing the people who are elected have a residual effect - ins utional problems require ins utional solutions. This is why I said this story could be told with different characters than Obama and the windows company. Some problems and malfunctions are intrinsic to the democratic system and their solution is necessarily out of the democratic game.
James Madison was probably the first Public Choice Theorist. His essays in the Federalist about democratic governance are probably the biggest inspiration for PCT scholars.
This relates to the topic how, or did the river burst its banks again?
Elaborate?
Forgive us, profe, we're not all on the same page as you yet. That very short sentence, ehem, doesn't carry all the freight you seem to think it does.
Maybe you could lard out your own comments a bit, so we can SEE what you're trying to say, and not be left guessing at it. Again.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
