Just finished reading in dead tree form, actually. Great piece as usual.
For what it’s worth, I think that the local Pittsburgh politicians who are promoting this debacle are exactly the type you tend to lambaste so often. The economic costs of completely disrupting normal traffic patterns in the central business district, or of hosting an event that chronically attracts rioters(in a major metropolitan area with plenty of targets, and insufficient police resources), mean nothing to them, as long as they get their photo ops with foreign dignitaries.
AnonymousSeptember 21, 2009 at 5:46 am
Conspiring monopolists. That’s all they are. Complex trade rules, negotiations, protections for sale, retaliations for sale, etc. etc.–all intended to empower the political class.
Let other countries deal with their monopolists. Our own government would serve us best to hold off foreign armies and let individual citizens negotiate their own private foreign trade deals.
muirgeoSeptember 21, 2009 at 7:48 am
Ridiculous. Expanding the role of markets in the modern economy just means allowing for one scam after the next to steal from the productive economy. Why make something of value when you can corner a futures market, make a killing in the carry trade or make complex financial products or super high speed computer programs to extract wealth from the economy with far less effort?
Adam Smith DOES NOT APPLY to the modern economy. We’re not just talking about buying apples from street vendors anymore.
We fought a revolution over corporate dominance and you want to deliver us and our liberties right back into their hands. Man I wish the world were as simple as you’d like to make it out to be.
AnonymousSeptember 21, 2009 at 9:54 am
If the world were as simple as you claim Don makes it out to be, there’s an outside chance that controllers would get it right.
“We fought a revolution over corporate dominance and you want to deliver us and our liberties right back into their hands.” ~ muirgeo
That’s got to be one for the list. I understand that the focus of your schooling was on biological science but did you have to take any History along the way at all? Besides, even if you were correct, corporations cannot force you to patronize them; the only entity that takes away liberties is the entity that you advocate for more of.
AnonymousSeptember 21, 2009 at 10:32 am
Or you could review first hand accounts of the participants in the original Tea Parties and their thoughts on the British trading companies, and realize muirgeo is right on this.
Where he fudges or omits the history considerably is that most of the rage is directed at corporations that were granted monopolies by the state – but there is no doubt that the founders were suspicious of and revolting against corporations. Woody Holton has also looked at the revolution in Virginia specifically and concluded that the strong Virginian dependence on and indebtedness to British merchants and lenders (as opposed to domestic mercantile classes that emerged in New England) also made the more than eager to break with Britain as a way of canceling their debts (failure to pay your British lenders isn’t default… it’s refusing the treasonous act of paying the enemy!… or so the logic went).
As in the capitalism/imperialism post, LCJ – don’t make the common mistake of assuming that the free market exists everywhere corporations exist.
muirgeoSeptember 21, 2009 at 2:05 pm
“Where he fudges or omits the history considerably is that most of the rage is directed at corporations that were granted monopolies by the state…”
Yeah but this happens when men of too much wealth buy the state. In our case, indeed, the Robber Barons were made fabulously wealthy by the state in an effort to build the railroads. THEN those men of wealth bought politicians and set us on our path to the current corporate controlled state.
50% of all people in the US of A now work for a corporation of 500 or more employees. There’s no liberty in that. You want to make it you need to join the club and bow to corporate rules and law… individuality be damned. I much more trust a state of my elected peers BY MY PEERS then a corporate board or a state elected by such a corporate board.
AnonymousSeptember 21, 2009 at 2:12 pm
RE: “Yeah but this happens when men of too much wealth buy the state.”
Right, but my point is (1.) then don’t use it as a criticism of corporations generally, and (2.) this point – this qualification you’ve added here – is something that I think everyone here can agree with you on. It muddies the waters to refer to corporations indiscriminately.
Re: “50% of all people in the US of A now work for a corporation of 500 or more employees. There’s no liberty in that.”
Huh? Why not? Maybe a certain degree of anonymity, but sometimes that can be liberating. I don’t understand the relationship between firm size and liberty – could you explain it?
Using 1969-2006 data this number is not true– and not even close. One colossal problem with the statistic you used is the inclusion of government entities (as firms) and the simple fact that three quarters of all U.S. business firms are self-employed persons operating unincorporated businesses. The 50 percent “big corporate robber baron” figure is just wrong.
AnonymousSeptember 21, 2009 at 5:30 pm
“individuality be damned. I much more trust a state of my elected peers BY MY PEERS then a corporate board or a state elected by such a corporate board.”This administration is the definition of the nanny state. As for being satisfied with the state of the nation based on the election results of your peers did you say this when George W. Bush was elected?What you have Muirgeo is a nation of the indebted; a nation of people that live for the hand out. An the roles keep growing everyday.Think Roman Empire or the Polish Commonwealth. Think about their decay and death. Then think about the good ‘ole USA.
“…corporations cannot force you to patronize them…”
That’s a statement of ignorance of history.
So you think Goldman Sachs and AIG aren’t serving you (forcing you) with an impending tax liability? It’s not government that’s making you pay that tax to support their CEO’s bonuses… it’s their corporate wealth that owns the politicians. They have no plans to set up the “weak” government that YOU want which would take away their easy rent.
mattSeptember 21, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Which politicians are “owned”? Can you name them? Presumably you are refering to the politicians that passed and signed the bills–into law– that granted what you called the “impending tax” liability?
In any case, please provide us with a list of politicians who are owned by GS and AIG.
If this information is unavailable to the public, can we at least assume that it’s a majority of politicians? Because if it isn’t a majority of politicians, surely the “unbought” would fix things.
NathanSeptember 21, 2009 at 7:42 pm
I see. Big business owns the government, so the solution is more and bigger government, but with a magic sprinkling of pixie dust to ensure that is doesn’t fall into the hands of the rich and powerful, like it has every single time in human history.
AnonymousSeptember 22, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Like many others, I am confused by muirgeo’s inability to see this obvious inconsistency. It’s been pointed out dozens of times, but he has never addressed the point. I for one would love to hear how he wraps his brain around that one.
AnonymousSeptember 22, 2009 at 12:44 am
“They(corporations) have no plans to set up the “weak” government that YOU want which would take away their easy rent.”
So your solution is to make the government that they buy off, MORE POWERFUL. You make no sense.
AnonymousSeptember 22, 2009 at 10:11 am
(STU)PIDITY OF THE (muir) DUCK
All of these are stands alone stupidity. Context is not necessary to understand that the person who created these is mentally defective.
#42
muirgeo 19 hours ago in reply to dkuehn
9/21/09
50% of all people in the US of A now work for a corporation of 500 or more employees. There’s no liberty in that. You want to make it you need to join the club and bow to corporate rules and law… individuality be damned. I much more trust a state of my elected peers BY MY PEERS then a corporate board or a state elected by such a corporate board.
Muirgeo 20 hours ago in reply to LowcountryJoe
9/21/09
So you think Goldman Sachs and AIG aren’t serving you (forcing you) with an impending tax liability? It’s not government that’s making you pay that tax to support their CEO’s bonuses… it’s their corporate wealth that owns the politicians. They have no plans to set up the “weak” government that YOU want which would take away their easy rent.”
Only the mentally defective little Chihuahua can contradict himself in two quick posts. First he explicitly trusts the government, and then he explicitly reveals their dishonesty and corruption.
LOL, what a fool. Village idiots are good for laughs.
AnonymousSeptember 21, 2009 at 1:10 pm
(STU)PIDITY OF THE (muir) DUCK
All of these are stands alone stupidity. Context is not necessary to understand that the person who created these is mentally defective.
muirpidity
#40 on 10/21/08
“muirgeo 5 hours ago
“Ridiculous. Expanding the role of markets in the modern economy just means allowing for one scam after the next to steal from the productive economy.”
muirgroSeptember 21, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Shut up you!
Your opinion doesn’t count because you relied on the government to make your bread. You’re insignificant to the discussion. You need to recuse yourself!
But , yeah… thanks for your service.
AnonymousSeptember 21, 2009 at 2:43 pm
(STU)PIDITY OF THE (muir) DUCK
All of these are stands alone stupidity. Context is not necessary to understand that the person who created these is mentally defective.
#41 on 10/21/09 in reply of being exposed in #40.
muirgro 29 minutes ago in reply to vidyohs
“Shut up you!
Your opinion doesn’t count because you relied on the government to make your bread. You’re insignificant to the discussion. You need to recuse yourself!”
Muirgeo, markets are the mechanism on which the economy works. Expanding, or constraining them, through regulatory methods may help prevent fraud but never make them less complex. Adam Smith’s work is still very much applicable and accurately describes elements of the economy even today. His examples are dated but the mechanisms, interactions, and basic fundamentals are all still there even in the most complex structured financial agreements.Smith simply described roles and methods in the economy. He accurately described what takes place in the course of human trade and barter. Your example is a good one– buying apples from a street vendor. Given a lifetime of work you might be able to show all of the cooperation, trade, competition, aggregation of civic activities, transportation, and agricultural effort that goes into such a “simple” trade. It is as complex as trading any modern financial instrument.
muirgeoSeptember 22, 2009 at 5:35 am
Did Smith support monopolies much less huge Rent Seeking Mega Multi-National Corporations? I don’t think so.
Then you think correctly in this case. But what’s your point here? Do you really think the United States and Western Europe are better off for growing giant state bureaucracies that eat massive amounts of GDP and support massive corporate interests? The government you trust so implicitly is the same government that is the agar for the growth of special interests.
AnonymousSeptember 23, 2009 at 7:08 am
“growing giant state bureaucracies”
Read: growing giant state MONOPOLIES. Muir hates monopolies, so surely he hates the biggest most powerful and most exclusive monopolies of all.
AnonymousSeptember 21, 2009 at 10:34 am
It’s an interesting typology, but I’m guessing very few people that will be attending the G8 fit in one of these two groups.
twSeptember 21, 2009 at 2:02 pm
This is too local, but it’s been funny to see the reactions over time in Pittsburgh to hosting the G20. It all started out rosy, with the big surprise announcement, and the local politicians, led by the young mayor, saying how great this would be for Pittsburgh (international PR), particularly how much money would flow into the Downtown businesses. Initial euphoria.
Then word came out that the city was on the hook for something like $6 million in security bills that they couldn’t pay for; the city is still basically bankrupt. Residents a little angry.
Then word came out that the officials (and media) won’t really have to leave the Convention Center….all their meals/special needs would be attended to there. Businesses a little angry.
Then word came out that a lot of protestors hit town about a month before the G20 to stalk out positions where they could have the biggest impact. Businesses seemed to realize all of the sudden that their property could be damaged a la England, Seattle & wherever else these kind of international gatherings have been held of late. Businesses angry.
And now word has come out about how parts of the city will be on lockdown, and businesses have shut down all over the place, or at least having workers telecommute during the G20. Downtown busineses very frustrated at this point.
I believe this is still the case….one of the suburban schools has shut down for the G20 because they’re along the motorcade route from Allegheny County Airport….roughly 10 miles from downtown…some of the leaders will be driving in from there after taking a helicopter from their luxury, out-of-town hotels. More people angry.
And now the media is telling residents that there won’t likely be any international PR bump because if there are indeed protests that, say, break a few windows, that’s what will get covered. Nobody remembers for sure who met in Seattle (World Bank?), nobody remembers what came of it, nobody remembers any puff pieces that might have run on the city….but everybody remembers the protests/riots/broken windows that ensued.
Bottom line – you don’t want to have one of these things in your city!
AnonymousSeptember 21, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Right on, tw. Thanks for the extra facts.
I’ve said many times this summer that the entire event could have been held at Nemacolin or at the Stonewall Jackson Resort, and the delegations could make day trips into Pittsburgh, instead of having the whole conference there.
But of course the local politicians love having the entire event in the city, and they don’t pay any price if the entire downtown is set on fire.
Montani Semper LiberiSeptember 22, 2009 at 12:28 pm
We don’t want them down here in West by God, either. We already have Byrd to deal with.
AnonymousSeptember 23, 2009 at 4:11 am
Byrd’s at least good for making the drive to the South more interesting though – it’s great fun counting the number of signs listing things named after him.
AnonymousSeptember 22, 2009 at 3:11 am
muir,
You need to read about Hill, a so called “Robber Baron” and the builder of the Great Northern Railroad; those he competed against took government subsidies and this was their undoing. In fact, the notion that Hill was a robber baron is laughable as is explained in a book entitled: The Myth of the Robber Barons. I recommend that you read this book and stop repeating the tired old foolishness that is being spewed in public high schools.
Share
{ 29 comments }
Just finished reading in dead tree form, actually. Great piece as usual.
For what it’s worth, I think that the local Pittsburgh politicians who are promoting this debacle are exactly the type you tend to lambaste so often. The economic costs of completely disrupting normal traffic patterns in the central business district, or of hosting an event that chronically attracts rioters(in a major metropolitan area with plenty of targets, and insufficient police resources), mean nothing to them, as long as they get their photo ops with foreign dignitaries.
Conspiring monopolists. That’s all they are. Complex trade rules, negotiations, protections for sale, retaliations for sale, etc. etc.–all intended to empower the political class.
Let other countries deal with their monopolists. Our own government would serve us best to hold off foreign armies and let individual citizens negotiate their own private foreign trade deals.
Ridiculous. Expanding the role of markets in the modern economy just means allowing for one scam after the next to steal from the productive economy. Why make something of value when you can corner a futures market, make a killing in the carry trade or make complex financial products or super high speed computer programs to extract wealth from the economy with far less effort?
Adam Smith DOES NOT APPLY to the modern economy. We’re not just talking about buying apples from street vendors anymore.
We fought a revolution over corporate dominance and you want to deliver us and our liberties right back into their hands. Man I wish the world were as simple as you’d like to make it out to be.
If the world were as simple as you claim Don makes it out to be, there’s an outside chance that controllers would get it right.
“We fought a revolution over corporate dominance and you want to deliver us and our liberties right back into their hands.” ~ muirgeo
That’s got to be one for the list. I understand that the focus of your schooling was on biological science but did you have to take any History along the way at all? Besides, even if you were correct, corporations cannot force you to patronize them; the only entity that takes away liberties is the entity that you advocate for more of.
Or you could review first hand accounts of the participants in the original Tea Parties and their thoughts on the British trading companies, and realize muirgeo is right on this.
Where he fudges or omits the history considerably is that most of the rage is directed at corporations that were granted monopolies by the state – but there is no doubt that the founders were suspicious of and revolting against corporations. Woody Holton has also looked at the revolution in Virginia specifically and concluded that the strong Virginian dependence on and indebtedness to British merchants and lenders (as opposed to domestic mercantile classes that emerged in New England) also made the more than eager to break with Britain as a way of canceling their debts (failure to pay your British lenders isn’t default… it’s refusing the treasonous act of paying the enemy!… or so the logic went).
As in the capitalism/imperialism post, LCJ – don’t make the common mistake of assuming that the free market exists everywhere corporations exist.
“Where he fudges or omits the history considerably is that most of the rage is directed at corporations that were granted monopolies by the state…”
Yeah but this happens when men of too much wealth buy the state. In our case, indeed, the Robber Barons were made fabulously wealthy by the state in an effort to build the railroads. THEN those men of wealth bought politicians and set us on our path to the current corporate controlled state.
50% of all people in the US of A now work for a corporation of 500 or more employees. There’s no liberty in that. You want to make it you need to join the club and bow to corporate rules and law… individuality be damned. I much more trust a state of my elected peers BY MY PEERS then a corporate board or a state elected by such a corporate board.
RE: “Yeah but this happens when men of too much wealth buy the state.”
Right, but my point is (1.) then don’t use it as a criticism of corporations generally, and (2.) this point – this qualification you’ve added here – is something that I think everyone here can agree with you on. It muddies the waters to refer to corporations indiscriminately.
Re: “50% of all people in the US of A now work for a corporation of 500 or more employees. There’s no liberty in that.”
Huh? Why not? Maybe a certain degree of anonymity, but sometimes that can be liberating. I don’t understand the relationship between firm size and liberty – could you explain it?
Muirgeo, your statement is false.
Using 1969-2006 data this number is not true– and not even close. One colossal problem with the statistic you used is the inclusion of government entities (as firms) and the simple fact that three quarters of all U.S. business firms are self-employed persons operating unincorporated businesses. The 50 percent “big corporate robber baron” figure is just wrong.
“individuality be damned. I much more trust a state of my elected peers BY MY PEERS then a corporate board or a state elected by such a corporate board.”This administration is the definition of the nanny state. As for being satisfied with the state of the nation based on the election results of your peers did you say this when George W. Bush was elected?What you have Muirgeo is a nation of the indebted; a nation of people that live for the hand out. An the roles keep growing everyday.Think Roman Empire or the Polish Commonwealth. Think about their decay and death. Then think about the good ‘ole USA.
Governments can force you to patronize them:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/wire/sns-ap-us-health-care-overhaul-medicare,0,1506314.story
“…corporations cannot force you to patronize them…”
That’s a statement of ignorance of history.
So you think Goldman Sachs and AIG aren’t serving you (forcing you) with an impending tax liability? It’s not government that’s making you pay that tax to support their CEO’s bonuses… it’s their corporate wealth that owns the politicians. They have no plans to set up the “weak” government that YOU want which would take away their easy rent.
Which politicians are “owned”? Can you name them? Presumably you are refering to the politicians that passed and signed the bills–into law– that granted what you called the “impending tax” liability?
In any case, please provide us with a list of politicians who are owned by GS and AIG.
If this information is unavailable to the public, can we at least assume that it’s a majority of politicians? Because if it isn’t a majority of politicians, surely the “unbought” would fix things.
I see. Big business owns the government, so the solution is more and bigger government, but with a magic sprinkling of pixie dust to ensure that is doesn’t fall into the hands of the rich and powerful, like it has every single time in human history.
Like many others, I am confused by muirgeo’s inability to see this obvious inconsistency. It’s been pointed out dozens of times, but he has never addressed the point. I for one would love to hear how he wraps his brain around that one.
“They(corporations) have no plans to set up the “weak” government that YOU want which would take away their easy rent.”
So your solution is to make the government that they buy off, MORE POWERFUL. You make no sense.
(STU)PIDITY OF THE (muir) DUCK
All of these are stands alone stupidity. Context is not necessary to understand that the person who created these is mentally defective.
#42
muirgeo 19 hours ago in reply to dkuehn
9/21/09
50% of all people in the US of A now work for a corporation of 500 or more employees. There’s no liberty in that. You want to make it you need to join the club and bow to corporate rules and law… individuality be damned. I much more trust a state of my elected peers BY MY PEERS then a corporate board or a state elected by such a corporate board.
Muirgeo 20 hours ago in reply to LowcountryJoe
9/21/09
So you think Goldman Sachs and AIG aren’t serving you (forcing you) with an impending tax liability? It’s not government that’s making you pay that tax to support their CEO’s bonuses… it’s their corporate wealth that owns the politicians. They have no plans to set up the “weak” government that YOU want which would take away their easy rent.”
Only the mentally defective little Chihuahua can contradict himself in two quick posts. First he explicitly trusts the government, and then he explicitly reveals their dishonesty and corruption.
LOL, what a fool. Village idiots are good for laughs.
(STU)PIDITY OF THE (muir) DUCK
All of these are stands alone stupidity. Context is not necessary to understand that the person who created these is mentally defective.
muirpidity
#40 on 10/21/08
“muirgeo 5 hours ago
“Ridiculous. Expanding the role of markets in the modern economy just means allowing for one scam after the next to steal from the productive economy.”
Shut up you!
Your opinion doesn’t count because you relied on the government to make your bread. You’re insignificant to the discussion. You need to recuse yourself!
But , yeah… thanks for your service.
(STU)PIDITY OF THE (muir) DUCK
All of these are stands alone stupidity. Context is not necessary to understand that the person who created these is mentally defective.
#41 on 10/21/09 in reply of being exposed in #40.
muirgro 29 minutes ago in reply to vidyohs
“Shut up you!
Your opinion doesn’t count because you relied on the government to make your bread. You’re insignificant to the discussion. You need to recuse yourself!”
Muirgeo, markets are the mechanism on which the economy works. Expanding, or constraining them, through regulatory methods may help prevent fraud but never make them less complex. Adam Smith’s work is still very much applicable and accurately describes elements of the economy even today. His examples are dated but the mechanisms, interactions, and basic fundamentals are all still there even in the most complex structured financial agreements.Smith simply described roles and methods in the economy. He accurately described what takes place in the course of human trade and barter. Your example is a good one– buying apples from a street vendor. Given a lifetime of work you might be able to show all of the cooperation, trade, competition, aggregation of civic activities, transportation, and agricultural effort that goes into such a “simple” trade. It is as complex as trading any modern financial instrument.
Did Smith support monopolies much less huge Rent Seeking Mega Multi-National Corporations? I don’t think so.
Do you support monopolies?
Then you think correctly in this case. But what’s your point here? Do you really think the United States and Western Europe are better off for growing giant state bureaucracies that eat massive amounts of GDP and support massive corporate interests? The government you trust so implicitly is the same government that is the agar for the growth of special interests.
“growing giant state bureaucracies”
Read: growing giant state MONOPOLIES. Muir hates monopolies, so surely he hates the biggest most powerful and most exclusive monopolies of all.
It’s an interesting typology, but I’m guessing very few people that will be attending the G8 fit in one of these two groups.
This is too local, but it’s been funny to see the reactions over time in Pittsburgh to hosting the G20. It all started out rosy, with the big surprise announcement, and the local politicians, led by the young mayor, saying how great this would be for Pittsburgh (international PR), particularly how much money would flow into the Downtown businesses. Initial euphoria.
Then word came out that the city was on the hook for something like $6 million in security bills that they couldn’t pay for; the city is still basically bankrupt. Residents a little angry.
Then word came out that the officials (and media) won’t really have to leave the Convention Center….all their meals/special needs would be attended to there. Businesses a little angry.
Then word came out that a lot of protestors hit town about a month before the G20 to stalk out positions where they could have the biggest impact. Businesses seemed to realize all of the sudden that their property could be damaged a la England, Seattle & wherever else these kind of international gatherings have been held of late. Businesses angry.
And now word has come out about how parts of the city will be on lockdown, and businesses have shut down all over the place, or at least having workers telecommute during the G20. Downtown busineses very frustrated at this point.
I believe this is still the case….one of the suburban schools has shut down for the G20 because they’re along the motorcade route from Allegheny County Airport….roughly 10 miles from downtown…some of the leaders will be driving in from there after taking a helicopter from their luxury, out-of-town hotels. More people angry.
And now the media is telling residents that there won’t likely be any international PR bump because if there are indeed protests that, say, break a few windows, that’s what will get covered. Nobody remembers for sure who met in Seattle (World Bank?), nobody remembers what came of it, nobody remembers any puff pieces that might have run on the city….but everybody remembers the protests/riots/broken windows that ensued.
Bottom line – you don’t want to have one of these things in your city!
Right on, tw. Thanks for the extra facts.
I’ve said many times this summer that the entire event could have been held at Nemacolin or at the Stonewall Jackson Resort, and the delegations could make day trips into Pittsburgh, instead of having the whole conference there.
But of course the local politicians love having the entire event in the city, and they don’t pay any price if the entire downtown is set on fire.
We don’t want them down here in West by God, either. We already have Byrd to deal with.
Byrd’s at least good for making the drive to the South more interesting though – it’s great fun counting the number of signs listing things named after him.
muir,
You need to read about Hill, a so called “Robber Baron” and the builder of the Great Northern Railroad; those he competed against took government subsidies and this was their undoing. In fact, the notion that Hill was a robber baron is laughable as is explained in a book entitled: The Myth of the Robber Barons. I recommend that you read this book and stop repeating the tired old foolishness that is being spewed in public high schools.