The Age Of Nefarious:Hippies Reckon With Manipulated Economics

(Corruptco Week tips a hat to Rev. Gisher for tirelessly spreading the K Street joy around blogarama)
Ok, we have a global economy and it is perhaps a dated mindset to consider things like economic protectionism and trade partnerships. Where we used to criticize our government for favoring sectors in our own economy, we now see a scenario emerging where we favor certain economies, certain governments, and on the surface this seems fine because after all, in the liberty clique, we should only trade with nations that, like us, uphold their moral authority. I mean, we would not deal with a country that say, gives comfort to the ‘enemy’. Nah. Lobbying by foreign governments? How ABSURD! Giving them control of essential infrastructure? Hardly proof that we’ve gone mad!
Next you’ll suggest that free trade would reduce the influence of multinationals and foreign governments, next you’ll say that we should reduce the influence on our elected officials by considering free trade policies. And then as hippies, we will be forced to think outside the bong a bit. (continued)

Because we are talking about corruption, we cannot help but get around to lobbyists and the economic factors that make lobbying so successful at this point- we can trace many actions we disagree with to their influence on policy – which is without question undermining our political process. This is a reality we cannot ignore on the right or the left, although we tend to look at economics from these places. Should we? Many of us disagree also about indicators of prosperity, and often the free trade argument considers such factors as jobs compared to cheap goods.

Consider though the difference between a free trade system and an economy significantly regulated by government, domestic and globally. On the surface it sounds incompatible with our ‘lefty’ arguments to suggest less governmental oversight as opposed to more. This does not sound like a ‘leftist’ argument at all. But there is a difference between regulating the legal actions of industry, say, for the good of the environment and regulating the ECONOMY to such an extent that the government is constantly trying to tinker in favor of one sector or another, thus raising the strength of certain industries by artificial means and often at the expense of another sector. Or trade agreements that do not address human rights and equity, but rather, address the whims of the fatcat foreign investors.

Why do we criticize the Bush administration, for example, but yet-want to increase the authority of his ilk?

Now, if they tinkered for the good of the public, as WE the public would like, we might applaud this stance on business. We might look at tinkering as a way to address inequity, imbalance, even the playing field, help those businesses that are less able to compete to thrive. Whether we should even do that is debatable, but certainly there is a time and place for the law to step in and impose a standard of fairness. For example, we can agree that stopping child labor is an acceptable intrusion. But petropolicy? How many lives will that cost us? Energy subsidies?

Why are we giving killers and destroyers tax breaks while we shout about countries that shelter terrorists? While we knowingly support companies that have a hostile position on environmental degradation? How many have died from tsunamis, hurricanes, acts becoming more frequent and more catastrophic as the climate changes?

But what about those areas that do not pertain to human rights- Subsidies, back room deals, corporate welfare, tax breaks, legal loopholes and no bid contracts? We know that we have an environment that feeds the inexhaustible appetite of the lobby interests. We know that the more the government regulates and the more politicians are owned by industry- the more opportunities there are for the political processes to carry out the will of industry perhaps in direct opposition to the public’s best interest.
We must therefore work on curtailing the interests of lobbyists and their ability to set policy, or we must concede the fact that the government is perhaps not to be trusted with the reigns of the market to the extent that we give it. The current system is a lot like permitting foxes to run the henhouse.

The excessive interests of well funded lobbyists are arguably the biggest threat to social change, social reform…perhaps the biggest barrier to addressing injustice and participatory democracy. As long as this goes on, the system will be too corrupt for any of us to exert any influence no matter who is elected, no matter what party you support. The planet will continue to deteriorate, poverty and hunger will continue.


So, it either needs to be addressed by limiting the power of the lobbyists or limiting the power of the government to respond to them. One or the other, but the current system cannot continue.