Power and its (im)balance

[PyramidHead]

The thing about powerful institutions that makes them potentially dangerous is that as power increases, so too does the ability to grant oneself more power. So power, like wealth, tends to concentrate when there is no external influence over where it accumulates. Even in cases where one party should have a lot less power than another (inmates in a correctional facility, for example, should not be equal in power to the prison guards and administrative staff), there is the possibility for abuse if the balance tips too far (Guantanamo Bay). Thus, it appears that power relationships become volatile when they cross a certain threshold; regardless of where you believe that threshold to be, the point is that it's somewhere, and nobody wants to be on the powerless end when that happens.

Unsurprisingly, the institution best equipped to keep the balance among powerful parties is itself very powerful. So, there is no guarantee that it will not use its power to grow unduly powerful. On the other hand, some type of oversight system is clearly needed, otherwise those with relatively less power will have no recourse. Can this problem be solved?

 

[ksen]

You know who probably has the most power over big corporations?

Delaware.

True story.

 

[untermensche]

The US was founded on the idea of the separation of power.

And they gave each separation a way to check the other. Maybe not so great but that was the idea.

The question really is; What checks corporate power?

And the answer is not Delaware.

 

[dismal]

The question really is; What checks corporate power?

And the answer is not Delaware.

Yes the answer is "consumers". No one points a gun at me and forces me to buy a GM car. No one points a gun at me and forces me to buy GM stock. Well, anyway, GM doesn't point a gun at me and force me to buy GM stock.

 

[untermensche]

The question really is; What checks corporate power?

And the answer is not Delaware.

Yes the answer is "consumers". No one points a gun at me and forces me to buy a GM car. No one points a gun at me and forces me to buy GM stock. Well, anyway, GM doesn't point a gun at me and force me to buy GM stock.

So consumers can stop the weapons manufacturers from getting the government to go to war because the weapons industry has influence over the government?

How exactly does that work?

I stop buying tanks?

 

[PyramidHead]

The question really is; What checks corporate power?

And the answer is not Delaware.

Yes the answer is "consumers". No one points a gun at me and forces me to buy a GM car. No one points a gun at me and forces me to buy GM stock. Well, anyway, GM doesn't point a gun at me and force me to buy GM stock.

Consumers are not affluent enough to vote with their wallets, precisely because of the power imbalance between large corporations with overseas factories and small businesses making the same product in the US. Because the power has become so concentrated on the side of big corporations, they have effectively undercut the competition, so that even if I wanted to buy a US-made widget from the mom & pop store, I can't afford to do so. I have to either not have the widget, or swallow my pride and buy it from the big guys.

 

[dismal]

Yes the answer is "consumers". No one points a gun at me and forces me to buy a GM car. No one points a gun at me and forces me to buy GM stock. Well, anyway, GM doesn't point a gun at me and force me to buy GM stock.

So consumers can stop the weapons manufacturers from getting the government to go to war because the weapons industry has influence over the government?

How exactly does that work?

I stop buying tanks?

That's a really good point. Except it's silly.

What percent of our government is dedicated to tank buying? What percent of our overall economy is tank sales?

If you believe the big things driving our economy and our government is the desire to buy and sell tanks you are very poorly calibrated to reality.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes the answer is "consumers". No one points a gun at me and forces me to buy a GM car. No one points a gun at me and forces me to buy GM stock. Well, anyway, GM doesn't point a gun at me and force me to buy GM stock.

Consumers are not affluent enough to vote with their wallets, precisely because of the power imbalance between large corporations with overseas factories and small businesses making the same product in the US. Because the power has become so concentrated on the side of big corporations, they have effectively undercut the competition, so that even if I wanted to buy a US-made widget from the mom & pop store, I can't afford to do so. I have to either not have the widget, or swallow my pride and buy it from the big guys.

Whaaaa? We vote with our wallet every day. Are you actually attempting to claim someone forces you to buy products on a regular basis?

Absurd.

 

[Unbeatable]

The question really is; What checks corporate power?

And the answer is not Delaware.

Yes the answer is "consumers".

But "consumers" is just an umbrella term for a bunch of separate, uncoordinated individuals. If "consumers" check corporate power, it's most likely by accident, because the corporation has managed to screw up on such a large level as to temporarily unite all of these individuals in their alienation from the corporation. In practice, consumers are inherently very easy to mislead, confuse, divide and conquer, and are for the most part already confused and divided. Knowledge is power, and the majority of consumers will always be irrational, ignorant sheep.

 

[TV and credit cards]

The thing about powerful institutions that makes them potentially dangerous is that as power increases, so too does the ability to grant oneself more power. So power, like wealth, tends to concentrate when there is no external influence over where it accumulates. Even in cases where one party should have a lot less power than another (inmates in a correctional facility, for example, should not be equal in power to the prison guards and administrative staff), there is the possibility for abuse if the balance tips too far (Guantanamo Bay). Thus, it appears that power relationships become volatile when they cross a certain threshold; regardless of where you believe that threshold to be, the point is that it's somewhere, and nobody wants to be on the powerless end when that happens.

Unsurprisingly, the institution best equipped to keep the balance among powerful parties is itself very powerful. So, there is no guarantee that it will not use its power to grow unduly powerful. On the other hand, some type of oversight system is clearly needed, otherwise those with relatively less power will have no recourse. Can this problem be solved?

Happened perhaps.
Well, I thought regulators were suppose to keep industries in check. I guess if you're a regulator eyeballing a lucrative job in the industry you're suppose to be regulating, maybe you're not going to try so hard at enforcement.
How about gerrymandering? There's another way to consolidate power. If I know the people in my oddly shaped district are voting for the party rather than the individual, I can concentrate my efforts on pleasing my big donors.
I'm starting to wonder if we are even preventing monopolies, in keeping with the intended purpose. If all you have to choose from is A or B and they both suck but A and B are so powerful C can't get a meaningful foot in the door, A or B for all intents and purposes is AB.

Who can solve this? Only those in the middle. We are the only group that can draw from both sides and be a big enough voice.
Now then, what will our legislature write when we start screaming loud enough? Some watered down piece of crap with plenty of loopholes I suspect. What do you think?
Civil unrest. Occupy Wall Street had a good idea but they were a bunch of loose screws throwing themselves in the economic gears. Not a good place to start.

 

[Nexus]

What percent of our government is dedicated to tank buying? What percent of our overall economy is tank sales?

What percent of your posts are worth reading? This nitpicking over tank sales is dismal even for you. Is their some reason you didn't respond to his overall point about weapon manufactures?

 

[untermensche]

So consumers can stop the weapons manufacturers from getting the government to go to war because the weapons industry has influence over the government?

How exactly does that work?

I stop buying tanks?

That's a really good point. Except it's silly.

What percent of our government is dedicated to tank buying? What percent of our overall economy is tank sales?

If you believe the big things driving our economy and our government is the desire to buy and sell tanks you are very poorly calibrated to reality.

What weapons will I have to stop buying to lessen the influence of weapons manufacturers on the government?

Since as you say my consumer habits will make all the difference.

 

[dismal]

What percent of our government is dedicated to tank buying? What percent of our overall economy is tank sales?

What percent of your posts are worth reading? This nitpicking over tank sales is dismal even for you. Is their some reason you didn't respond to his overall point about weapon manufactures?

a) This isn't a thread about weapons manufactures. His post is a largely irrelevant diversion for reasons I have already explained.
b) I will stack my record of advocating less government involvement in the economy against just about anyone here. Certainly against Uttermensche's. Yes, sometimes the government does point a gun at me and force me to pay for a tank. I consider this a problem of government (aka the one pointing the gun), not a problem of a corporation.

 

[dismal]

Yes the answer is "consumers".

But "consumers" is just an umbrella term for a bunch of separate, uncoordinated individuals. If "consumers" check corporate power, it's most likely by accident, because the corporation has managed to screw up on such a large level as to temporarily unite all of these individuals in their alienation from the corporation. In practice, consumers are inherently very easy to mislead, confuse, divide and conquer, and are for the most part already confused and divided. Knowledge is power, and the majority of consumers will always be irrational, ignorant sheep.

The fact that you enjoy and are willing to purchase Toasty Oat Flakes in no way lessens my power to not buy Toasty Oat Flakes.

The fact that each of us "separate, uncoordinated individuals" can exercise our power over Toast Oat Flake Corp according to our own wants and needs is a feature, not a problem.

 

[ksen]

b) I will stack my record of advocating less government involvement in the economy against just about anyone here.

like that's something to be proud of?

 

[Togo]

What percent of your posts are worth reading? This nitpicking over tank sales is dismal even for you. Is their some reason you didn't respond to his overall point about weapon manufactures?

a) This isn't a thread about weapons manufactures. His post is a largely irrelevant diversion for reasons I have already explained.

Except you haven't explained anything. You've posted a couple of pithy comments, and are assuming your point is obvious. It isn't. There are plenty of corporations that have little or no contact with consumers who aren't other corporations. My wife's hometown is considerably smaller than the steel plant that dominates the landscape, local economy, and local politics. What on earth does consumer power have to do with that?

Similarly, a considerable % of the annual budget of your country is spent on weapons. Again this is an industry where non-corporate consumers are typically irrelevant.

But "consumers" is just an umbrella term for a bunch of separate, uncoordinated individuals. If "consumers" check corporate power, it's most likely by accident, because the corporation has managed to screw up on such a large level as to temporarily unite all of these individuals in their alienation from the corporation. In practice, consumers are inherently very easy to mislead, confuse, divide and conquer, and are for the most part already confused and divided. Knowledge is power, and the majority of consumers will always be irrational, ignorant sheep.

The fact that you enjoy and are willing to purchase Toasty Oat Flakes in no way lessens my power to not buy Toasty Oat Flakes.

Sure it does. My local stores only stock the most popular two or three brands. If lots of people buy Toasty Oat flakes, my ability to purchase alternatives is reduced.

The fact that each of us "separate, uncoordinated individuals" can exercise our power over Toast Oat Flake Corp according to our own wants and needs is a feature, not a problem.

But you're talking about FMCGs (Fast Moving Consumer Goods) which don't necessarily work that way. All we can exert power over is individual product lines, and the corp has far more ways of exerting power over them than we do. And outside the small subset of the economy that are FMCGs your point doesn't make sense at all. You're not going to use an individual realtor or builder or insurance salesman often enough for consumer experience to have much impact on their activities, which is precisely why those industries are so fraught with fraud and mis-selling.

 

[dismal]

a) This isn't a thread about weapons manufactures. His post is a largely irrelevant diversion for reasons I have already explained.

Except you haven't explained anything. You've posted a couple of pithy comments, and are assuming your point is obvious. It isn't. There are plenty of corporations that have little or no contact with consumers who aren't other corporations. My wife's hometown is considerably smaller than the steel plant that dominates the landscape, local economy, and local politics. What on earth does consumer power have to do with that?

OK, to summarize points already made:

1) Weapons are not a big part of what the government spends money on
2) Weapons are not a big part of the economy
3) To attempt to focus this discussion on weapons is silly because they are not particularly meaningful given #1 and #2
$) Moreover, to the extent you want to distract the thread by bringing up weapons, the problem is a problem of government. If the government didn't force me to pay for tanks, I would have the complete power not to pay for tanks.

Similarly, a considerable % of the annual budget of your country is spent on weapons.

Really? What percent?

The fact that you enjoy and are willing to purchase Toasty Oat Flakes in no way lessens my power to not buy Toasty Oat Flakes.

Sure it does. My local stores only stock the most popular two or three brands. If lots of people buy Toasty Oat flakes, my ability to purchase alternatives is reduced.

This is called "life". The world does not exist to meet your every need. This is not an example of the company that makes Toasty Oat Flakes having power over you. They offer a product they are willing to sell. You choose to buy it or you don't. If you prefer Mapley Corn Pops you are free to make them for yourself or find someone who is willing to sell you them. You have no inherent right to have Mapley Corn Pops provided to you by the company that makes Toasty Oak Flakes so you cannot claim they have exercised power over you by not making them.

 

[PyramidHead]

Corporate power can subvert consumer power in several ways. Corporations employ consumers, for one thing, so they have some control over their buying power. They can also limit the options of consumers by crowding out competitors through government influence (property tax exemptions and the like). They can exploit prevailing economic conditions so that their product is the only real choice, even if nobody is directly forcing consumers not to shop elsewhere. A corporation is a unified entity with many pieces all working toward these and other goals.

Consumers, as has been pointed out, are individuals. Their main method of influencing corporate power is to not buy their products. Like voting, this only works if it happens en masse, and an individual consumer has no way to make this the case. A corporation is usually a top-down system, so it can act as a single body, and collusion among corporations is not unheard of.

 

[ksen]

1) Weapons are not a big part of what the government spends money on

Tell us more about how the government doesn't spend a lot on the procurement and maintenance of weapons.

eta: inb4 "I didn't say they didn't spend a lot I said it's not a big part of what they spend money on."

2) Weapons are not a big part of the economy

Well then neither is cereal or crackers or meat or clothing or haircuts.

 

[dismal]

Tell us more about how the government doesn't spend a lot on the procurement and maintenance of weapons.

eta: inb4 "I didn't say they didn't spend a lot I said it's not a big part of what they spend money on."

2) Weapons are not a big part of the economy

Well then neither is cereal or crackers or meat or clothing or haircuts.

What leads you to believe that a high percentage of government spending is on weapons?

By this I mean "cite some facts" unless you acknowledge it's entirely a faith-based belief.

 

[ksen]

eta: inb4 "I didn't say they didn't spend a lot I said it's not a big part of what they spend money on."

yiiiissssssss!!!