|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
I remember when she was snubbed by the DNC over debate schedule shit, I was thinking she would be an interesting VP option. She's probably a little too young for it, but damn she has an impressive resume for being only 34.
|
United States22883 Posts
On February 29 2016 06:01 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 05:54 Jibba wrote:On February 29 2016 04:24 travis wrote:On February 29 2016 03:46 kwizach wrote:On February 29 2016 02:54 travis wrote:On February 29 2016 02:35 kwizach wrote:On February 29 2016 02:16 travis wrote:
When people talk about a presidential candidate having "experience" - what are they referring to? Ability to play the politics game with various groups so that item A will pass in return for item B? Is that even something we want? Isn't that a huge part of the problem right now? No, the problem is precisely the fact that this doesn't happen anymore, because of republican obstructionism. Aren't these just two unrelated things? Are you saying that it's actually a good thing to pander to powerful groups solely to get their support? Isn't that the nature of lobbying? Is lobbying a good thing in it's current implementation? I wasn't talking about lobbyists, by "groups" I was referring to opposition groups in Congress (i.e. the other party). Being able to compromise and to pass bills which improve the lives of people even if they're not exactly as we would want them to be is an essential part of being effective in the U.S. political system (and in other representative democracies). But lobby groups are where the obstructionism comes from. It's why politicians are so incredibly stubborn on certain issues even though they are going against the general populous. There was a time, back in the earlier days of this country, when if a politician didn't do their job and went against what the population clearly wanted - they would be impeached or worse. Over time, people lost power over their government while simultaneously growing complacent. This isn't true at all. Lobbyists do most of the work for Congress and competing lobbies are a pretty healthy part of our democracy. Money in politics doesn't have the effect you (or most people) think it does. Politicians take extreme views because it gets them easy votes with a populace that increasingly doesn't care for nuance (from both sides.) The greatest effect of lobbyists isn't on politicians, it's on regular citizens. We've got shitty politicians because we're a shitty populace. The NRA isn't successful because it buys politicians. It's successful because it convinces ordinary citizens to support it, who then put pressure on politicians. Trump and co. don't rail on immigrants because of lobbyists and corporations - all the huge farming corps are benefitting and promote liberal immigration laws. Trump and co. are railing on it because it appeals to easy constituents. You're putting the cart before the horse. I highly doubt that there are grassroots movements promoting AT&T, Time Warner, Comcast, etc. yet laws are written that solely benefit entrenched telecom companies. Just one example.
Except there's a ton of money on the other side, especially from Google, lobbying against those interests. Lobbying is an enormous cluster fuck and there's almost always a significant counter-party on any given issue. There isn't much evidence of a company's lobbying dollars actually impacting a lawmakers' decision, because they usually receive a tide of money and research from both sides. It's a fun narrative to play out, but the academic research on lobbying doesn't support it.
|
On February 29 2016 06:10 jcarlsoniv wrote:I remember when she was snubbed by the DNC over debate schedule shit, I was thinking she would be an interesting VP option. She's probably a little too young for it, but damn she has an impressive resume for being only 34.
By the way, didn't you just lose a bet? ,-)
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i would take some of the lobbying research with a grain of salt not because of inaccuracy but some of the secondary effects, primarily the way lobbying makes legislation complex and inaccessible to the public. the complexity of regulatory rulemaking both substantially and procedurally can be a barrier for new entrants and lessen competition.
then there is the tax code and the various accounting rules that are just highly influential but not up for the democratic process to review.
|
On February 29 2016 05:54 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 04:24 travis wrote:On February 29 2016 03:46 kwizach wrote:On February 29 2016 02:54 travis wrote:On February 29 2016 02:35 kwizach wrote:On February 29 2016 02:16 travis wrote:
When people talk about a presidential candidate having "experience" - what are they referring to? Ability to play the politics game with various groups so that item A will pass in return for item B? Is that even something we want? Isn't that a huge part of the problem right now? No, the problem is precisely the fact that this doesn't happen anymore, because of republican obstructionism. Aren't these just two unrelated things? Are you saying that it's actually a good thing to pander to powerful groups solely to get their support? Isn't that the nature of lobbying? Is lobbying a good thing in it's current implementation? I wasn't talking about lobbyists, by "groups" I was referring to opposition groups in Congress (i.e. the other party). Being able to compromise and to pass bills which improve the lives of people even if they're not exactly as we would want them to be is an essential part of being effective in the U.S. political system (and in other representative democracies). But lobby groups are where the obstructionism comes from. It's why politicians are so incredibly stubborn on certain issues even though they are going against the general populous. There was a time, back in the earlier days of this country, when if a politician didn't do their job and went against what the population clearly wanted - they would be impeached or worse. Over time, people lost power over their government while simultaneously growing complacent. This isn't true at all. Lobbyists do most of the work for Congress and competing lobbies are a pretty healthy part of our democracy. Money in politics doesn't have the effect you (or most people) think it does. Politicians take extreme views because it gets them easy votes with a populace that increasingly doesn't care for nuance (from both sides.) The greatest effect of lobbyists isn't on politicians, it's on regular citizens. We've got shitty politicians because we're a shitty populace. The NRA isn't successful because it buys politicians. It's successful because it convinces ordinary citizens to support it, who then put pressure on politicians. You're putting the cart before the horse.
I see what you're saying, and I think what you are saying is right but is only part of the picture - given that the vast majority of campaign contributions do not come from small donors. They come from rich individuals, and corporations.
It seems to me that the biggest factor in having a successful election or re-election is campaign dollars. (And then god knows what shady shit happens after the actual election or re-election.)
I mean... let's be real. The guys running for senate, congress, presidency - they have private meetings with the wealthiest individuals and groups in the U.S. They become friends. They help each other out. They sure as shit don't care about helping out poor people most of the time, it's not an important use of their focus (unless they are feeling charitable).
Obviously I am speaking in generalities, but yeah I do think lobbying in it's current form is one of the biggest problems with our government.
So to sum it up, I don't disagree with you at all except for your last paragraph. Yeah, part of the problem is the shitty populace. But I think the bigger, more sinister problem is corruption. And I think it is more likely to be a source of obstinance in politicians than some kind of steadfast ethical stance. And actually, I think it doesn't manifest as a source of obstinance as much as it could because our representatives are often bought over *so well* that there isn't much disagreement among them in the first place.
|
On February 29 2016 06:13 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 06:01 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 29 2016 05:54 Jibba wrote:On February 29 2016 04:24 travis wrote:On February 29 2016 03:46 kwizach wrote:On February 29 2016 02:54 travis wrote:On February 29 2016 02:35 kwizach wrote:On February 29 2016 02:16 travis wrote:
When people talk about a presidential candidate having "experience" - what are they referring to? Ability to play the politics game with various groups so that item A will pass in return for item B? Is that even something we want? Isn't that a huge part of the problem right now? No, the problem is precisely the fact that this doesn't happen anymore, because of republican obstructionism. Aren't these just two unrelated things? Are you saying that it's actually a good thing to pander to powerful groups solely to get their support? Isn't that the nature of lobbying? Is lobbying a good thing in it's current implementation? I wasn't talking about lobbyists, by "groups" I was referring to opposition groups in Congress (i.e. the other party). Being able to compromise and to pass bills which improve the lives of people even if they're not exactly as we would want them to be is an essential part of being effective in the U.S. political system (and in other representative democracies). But lobby groups are where the obstructionism comes from. It's why politicians are so incredibly stubborn on certain issues even though they are going against the general populous. There was a time, back in the earlier days of this country, when if a politician didn't do their job and went against what the population clearly wanted - they would be impeached or worse. Over time, people lost power over their government while simultaneously growing complacent. This isn't true at all. Lobbyists do most of the work for Congress and competing lobbies are a pretty healthy part of our democracy. Money in politics doesn't have the effect you (or most people) think it does. Politicians take extreme views because it gets them easy votes with a populace that increasingly doesn't care for nuance (from both sides.) The greatest effect of lobbyists isn't on politicians, it's on regular citizens. We've got shitty politicians because we're a shitty populace. The NRA isn't successful because it buys politicians. It's successful because it convinces ordinary citizens to support it, who then put pressure on politicians. Trump and co. don't rail on immigrants because of lobbyists and corporations - all the huge farming corps are benefitting and promote liberal immigration laws. Trump and co. are railing on it because it appeals to easy constituents. You're putting the cart before the horse. I highly doubt that there are grassroots movements promoting AT&T, Time Warner, Comcast, etc. yet laws are written that solely benefit entrenched telecom companies. Just one example. Except there's a ton of money on the other side, especially from Google, lobbying against those interests. Lobbying is an enormous cluster fuck and there's almost always a significant counter-party on any given issue. There isn't much evidence of a company's lobbying dollars actually impacting a lawmakers' decision, because they usually receive a tide of money and research from both sides. It's a fun narrative to play out, but the academic research on lobbying doesn't support it.
This is flat-out false. There is plenty of scientific research documenting that lobbying does have an impact on what policymakers vote for and support in terms of policies. Here's an example. Here's another one. And another. Did you want another one? OK, there you go.
This isn't to say that lobbyists always get their way, obviously. But to argue that lobbying targeted at policymakers (and not the population) doesn't have an impact on votes is simply not true.
|
On February 29 2016 04:24 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 03:46 kwizach wrote:On February 29 2016 02:54 travis wrote:On February 29 2016 02:35 kwizach wrote:On February 29 2016 02:16 travis wrote:
When people talk about a presidential candidate having "experience" - what are they referring to? Ability to play the politics game with various groups so that item A will pass in return for item B? Is that even something we want? Isn't that a huge part of the problem right now? No, the problem is precisely the fact that this doesn't happen anymore, because of republican obstructionism. Aren't these just two unrelated things? Are you saying that it's actually a good thing to pander to powerful groups solely to get their support? Isn't that the nature of lobbying? Is lobbying a good thing in it's current implementation? I wasn't talking about lobbyists, by "groups" I was referring to opposition groups in Congress (i.e. the other party). Being able to compromise and to pass bills which improve the lives of people even if they're not exactly as we would want them to be is an essential part of being effective in the U.S. political system (and in other representative democracies). But lobby groups are where the obstructionism comes from. It's why politicians are so incredibly stubborn on certain issues even though they are going against the general populous. There was a time, back in the earlier days of this country, when if a politician didn't do their job and went against what the population clearly wanted - they would be impeached or worse. Over time, people lost power over their government while simultaneously growing complacent.
Obstructionism doesn't only come from the influence of lobbyists. Some policymakers are ready to compromise with the other side, others less so (see Tea Party representatives in Congress).
On February 29 2016 04:24 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 02:54 travis wrote:
Experience also entails familiarity with executive decision-making at the federal level, including how to delegate or concentrate authority, how to organize advisers and the decision-making process itself,
I mean, to be real - isn't this pretty abstract stuff? I mean you can find tons of non-politicians who can do things like organize people and delegate authority. And sure, knowing the "rules and laws" is useful, but then I keep being told by people that Hillary is a better candidate than Bernie because she would know these rules and laws, and then at the same time they defend her not knowing something as basic as that she shouldn't use a private server for her emails. It isn't abstract stuff at all. How you organize the decision-making process has a strong impact on the kind of input you'll receive, what you'll base your decisions on, and ultimately what your decisions are going to look like (and how coherent they will be). What I am saying is that I think those skills do not require that you have experience in politics. If we disagree, then ok we disagree 
Executive experience outside of politics can help, but my point was that a lack of experience can be a disadvantage.
On February 29 2016 04:24 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 02:54 travis wrote:
and the capacity to deal with, and overcome, bureaucratic resistance.
Again, I think this concept is part of the problem. It seems to me that, currently, the system is incredibly corrupt. Everything is about pandering to the groups that provide the $$, because that's how you get continued support. Why would we want someone who will continue to play into this system? If our politicians aren't doing their jobs, isn't it the job of the citizens to stop electing them more than it is the job of the president to perpetually make bargains with them? I'm not sure how this comment is supposed to be relevant to what I said :p I wasn't talking about pandering to "the groups that provide the $$", I was talking about being able to overcome bureaucratic resistance, which is to say the kind of inertia and "conservatism" which can result from being supported by a bureaucracy made of people who have been occupying the same functions for (much) longer than your mandate. Inexperienced decision-makers can be at a disadvantage in this regard. Okay, I will admit that this sort of thing is a little more complicated than just pandering to the groups with the $$. But that is a huge source of the obstructionism. Let's just say I think that the obstructionism is rarely motivated by anything noble. I do concede that regardless of what I think is ideal, there does have to be some capacity to work with those people.
In this case I was talking about bureaucratic routines, standard operational procedures, path dependency, etc. Someone with executive experience will have an advantage in its relation to the bureaucracy serving him in this regard.
|
United States22883 Posts
On February 29 2016 06:27 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 06:13 Jibba wrote:On February 29 2016 06:01 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 29 2016 05:54 Jibba wrote:On February 29 2016 04:24 travis wrote:On February 29 2016 03:46 kwizach wrote:On February 29 2016 02:54 travis wrote:On February 29 2016 02:35 kwizach wrote:On February 29 2016 02:16 travis wrote:
When people talk about a presidential candidate having "experience" - what are they referring to? Ability to play the politics game with various groups so that item A will pass in return for item B? Is that even something we want? Isn't that a huge part of the problem right now? No, the problem is precisely the fact that this doesn't happen anymore, because of republican obstructionism. Aren't these just two unrelated things? Are you saying that it's actually a good thing to pander to powerful groups solely to get their support? Isn't that the nature of lobbying? Is lobbying a good thing in it's current implementation? I wasn't talking about lobbyists, by "groups" I was referring to opposition groups in Congress (i.e. the other party). Being able to compromise and to pass bills which improve the lives of people even if they're not exactly as we would want them to be is an essential part of being effective in the U.S. political system (and in other representative democracies). But lobby groups are where the obstructionism comes from. It's why politicians are so incredibly stubborn on certain issues even though they are going against the general populous. There was a time, back in the earlier days of this country, when if a politician didn't do their job and went against what the population clearly wanted - they would be impeached or worse. Over time, people lost power over their government while simultaneously growing complacent. This isn't true at all. Lobbyists do most of the work for Congress and competing lobbies are a pretty healthy part of our democracy. Money in politics doesn't have the effect you (or most people) think it does. Politicians take extreme views because it gets them easy votes with a populace that increasingly doesn't care for nuance (from both sides.) The greatest effect of lobbyists isn't on politicians, it's on regular citizens. We've got shitty politicians because we're a shitty populace. The NRA isn't successful because it buys politicians. It's successful because it convinces ordinary citizens to support it, who then put pressure on politicians. Trump and co. don't rail on immigrants because of lobbyists and corporations - all the huge farming corps are benefitting and promote liberal immigration laws. Trump and co. are railing on it because it appeals to easy constituents. You're putting the cart before the horse. I highly doubt that there are grassroots movements promoting AT&T, Time Warner, Comcast, etc. yet laws are written that solely benefit entrenched telecom companies. Just one example. Except there's a ton of money on the other side, especially from Google, lobbying against those interests. Lobbying is an enormous cluster fuck and there's almost always a significant counter-party on any given issue. There isn't much evidence of a company's lobbying dollars actually impacting a lawmakers' decision, because they usually receive a tide of money and research from both sides. It's a fun narrative to play out, but the academic research on lobbying doesn't support it. This is flat-out false. There is plenty of scientific research documenting that lobbying does have an impact on what policymakers vote for and support in terms of policies. Here's an example. Here's another one. And another. Did you want another one? OK, there you go. This isn't to say that lobbyists always get their way, obviously. But to argue that lobbying targeted at policymakers (and not the population) doesn't have an impact on votes is simply not true.
1) I didn't say lobbying didn't impact votes. Lobbying's impact is generally on the public, which impacts votes. On politicians, its impact is in getting politicians to avoid taking on a subject, but it has dramatically less effect in convincing politicians of a position.
2) It's clear you just Googled "lobbying + impact study" and didn't even read the abstracts.
From one of those papers.
This study tests the common assumption that wealthier interest groups have an advantage in policymaking by considering the lobbyist’s experience, connections, and lobbying intensity as well as the organization’s resources. Combining newly gathered information about lobbyists’ resources and policy outcomes with the largest survey of lobbyists ever conducted, I find surprisingly little relationship between organizations’ financial resources and their policy success—but greater money is linked to certain lobbying tactics and traits, and some of these are linked to greater policy success.
The third link details the effect of negative lobbying (which is largely comprised of the lobbying activity I'm describing) vs. positive lobbying (which I'm saying isn't very often used or effective). Lobbies, both those representing constituent groups and professional groups, can pretty easily scare politicians out of things. They don't push them into things very easily.
|
On February 29 2016 05:54 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 04:24 travis wrote:On February 29 2016 03:46 kwizach wrote:On February 29 2016 02:54 travis wrote:On February 29 2016 02:35 kwizach wrote:On February 29 2016 02:16 travis wrote:
When people talk about a presidential candidate having "experience" - what are they referring to? Ability to play the politics game with various groups so that item A will pass in return for item B? Is that even something we want? Isn't that a huge part of the problem right now? No, the problem is precisely the fact that this doesn't happen anymore, because of republican obstructionism. Aren't these just two unrelated things? Are you saying that it's actually a good thing to pander to powerful groups solely to get their support? Isn't that the nature of lobbying? Is lobbying a good thing in it's current implementation? I wasn't talking about lobbyists, by "groups" I was referring to opposition groups in Congress (i.e. the other party). Being able to compromise and to pass bills which improve the lives of people even if they're not exactly as we would want them to be is an essential part of being effective in the U.S. political system (and in other representative democracies). But lobby groups are where the obstructionism comes from. It's why politicians are so incredibly stubborn on certain issues even though they are going against the general populous. There was a time, back in the earlier days of this country, when if a politician didn't do their job and went against what the population clearly wanted - they would be impeached or worse. Over time, people lost power over their government while simultaneously growing complacent. This isn't true at all. Lobbyists do most of the work for Congress and competing lobbies are a pretty healthy part of our democracy. Money in politics doesn't have the effect you (or most people) think it does. Politicians take extreme views because it gets them easy votes with a populace that increasingly doesn't care for nuance (from both sides.) The greatest effect of lobbyists isn't on politicians, it's on regular citizens. We've got shitty politicians because we're a shitty populace. The NRA isn't successful because it buys politicians. It's successful because it convinces ordinary citizens to support it, who then put pressure on politicians. Trump and co. don't rail on immigrants because of lobbyists and corporations - all the huge farming corps are benefitting and promote liberal immigration laws. Trump and co. are railing on it because it appeals to easy constituents. You're putting the cart before the horse.
This is an excellent post that really gets at why solving political problems in the US is so difficult; that lobbyists are both horrifyingly corrupting and yet also essential to a functioning regulatory state is a frustrating truth of the process and is not naive at all lol
Edit: didn't read ahead lol, point still definitely stands 
|
On February 29 2016 06:15 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 06:10 jcarlsoniv wrote:I remember when she was snubbed by the DNC over debate schedule shit, I was thinking she would be an interesting VP option. She's probably a little too young for it, but damn she has an impressive resume for being only 34. By the way, didn't you just lose a bet? ,-)
canceled it i think, we never made it super official. maybe ill make jcarl make his sigs about penises, but idc that much tbh.
On February 29 2016 06:52 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 05:54 Jibba wrote:On February 29 2016 04:24 travis wrote:On February 29 2016 03:46 kwizach wrote:On February 29 2016 02:54 travis wrote:On February 29 2016 02:35 kwizach wrote:On February 29 2016 02:16 travis wrote:
When people talk about a presidential candidate having "experience" - what are they referring to? Ability to play the politics game with various groups so that item A will pass in return for item B? Is that even something we want? Isn't that a huge part of the problem right now? No, the problem is precisely the fact that this doesn't happen anymore, because of republican obstructionism. Aren't these just two unrelated things? Are you saying that it's actually a good thing to pander to powerful groups solely to get their support? Isn't that the nature of lobbying? Is lobbying a good thing in it's current implementation? I wasn't talking about lobbyists, by "groups" I was referring to opposition groups in Congress (i.e. the other party). Being able to compromise and to pass bills which improve the lives of people even if they're not exactly as we would want them to be is an essential part of being effective in the U.S. political system (and in other representative democracies). But lobby groups are where the obstructionism comes from. It's why politicians are so incredibly stubborn on certain issues even though they are going against the general populous. There was a time, back in the earlier days of this country, when if a politician didn't do their job and went against what the population clearly wanted - they would be impeached or worse. Over time, people lost power over their government while simultaneously growing complacent. This isn't true at all. Lobbyists do most of the work for Congress and competing lobbies are a pretty healthy part of our democracy. Money in politics doesn't have the effect you (or most people) think it does. Politicians take extreme views because it gets them easy votes with a populace that increasingly doesn't care for nuance (from both sides.) The greatest effect of lobbyists isn't on politicians, it's on regular citizens. We've got shitty politicians because we're a shitty populace. The NRA isn't successful because it buys politicians. It's successful because it convinces ordinary citizens to support it, who then put pressure on politicians. Trump and co. don't rail on immigrants because of lobbyists and corporations - all the huge farming corps are benefitting and promote liberal immigration laws. Trump and co. are railing on it because it appeals to easy constituents. You're putting the cart before the horse. This is an excellent post that really gets at why solving political problems in the US is so difficult; that lobbyists are both horrifyingly corrupting and yet also essential to a functioning regulatory state is a frustrating truth of the process and is not naive at all lol Edit: didn't read ahead lol, point still definitely stands
lobbying is just another part of our representative democracy.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the power of negative lobbying is a big part of how entrenched interests can defend a position. there are some actually bad policy changes that are defeated but it is rational to expect industries that profit from existing laws to defend those, or to offer their version of substitute rules for a potential reform, thereby creating more complexity that is also asymmetrically favoring the ones in best position to adjust, usually the lobbying party. there are a lot of complexity with respect to which methods of lobbying is successful. notably those with concrete near term economic impact. by the judicial oversight of agency rulemaking certain class of arguments are given more deference, and most important among these is the cost to interested parties. this sort of industry harm calculation is important information but also only represent existing as opposed to potential industry. it is only when competition exists that it is the. reflected in lobbying, but when there is no in market competition there really is a dead spot with your counterparty.
basically the secondary or meta effects are interesting and particular industries with no public/competent counterparty can yield very good returns. stuff like private prison, what is the counterparty here?
|
not sending every black person to prison would be a start I guess. Not everything needs to be a business
|
On February 29 2016 06:34 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 06:27 kwizach wrote:On February 29 2016 06:13 Jibba wrote:On February 29 2016 06:01 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 29 2016 05:54 Jibba wrote:On February 29 2016 04:24 travis wrote:On February 29 2016 03:46 kwizach wrote:On February 29 2016 02:54 travis wrote:On February 29 2016 02:35 kwizach wrote:On February 29 2016 02:16 travis wrote:
When people talk about a presidential candidate having "experience" - what are they referring to? Ability to play the politics game with various groups so that item A will pass in return for item B? Is that even something we want? Isn't that a huge part of the problem right now? No, the problem is precisely the fact that this doesn't happen anymore, because of republican obstructionism. Aren't these just two unrelated things? Are you saying that it's actually a good thing to pander to powerful groups solely to get their support? Isn't that the nature of lobbying? Is lobbying a good thing in it's current implementation? I wasn't talking about lobbyists, by "groups" I was referring to opposition groups in Congress (i.e. the other party). Being able to compromise and to pass bills which improve the lives of people even if they're not exactly as we would want them to be is an essential part of being effective in the U.S. political system (and in other representative democracies). But lobby groups are where the obstructionism comes from. It's why politicians are so incredibly stubborn on certain issues even though they are going against the general populous. There was a time, back in the earlier days of this country, when if a politician didn't do their job and went against what the population clearly wanted - they would be impeached or worse. Over time, people lost power over their government while simultaneously growing complacent. This isn't true at all. Lobbyists do most of the work for Congress and competing lobbies are a pretty healthy part of our democracy. Money in politics doesn't have the effect you (or most people) think it does. Politicians take extreme views because it gets them easy votes with a populace that increasingly doesn't care for nuance (from both sides.) The greatest effect of lobbyists isn't on politicians, it's on regular citizens. We've got shitty politicians because we're a shitty populace. The NRA isn't successful because it buys politicians. It's successful because it convinces ordinary citizens to support it, who then put pressure on politicians. Trump and co. don't rail on immigrants because of lobbyists and corporations - all the huge farming corps are benefitting and promote liberal immigration laws. Trump and co. are railing on it because it appeals to easy constituents. You're putting the cart before the horse. I highly doubt that there are grassroots movements promoting AT&T, Time Warner, Comcast, etc. yet laws are written that solely benefit entrenched telecom companies. Just one example. Except there's a ton of money on the other side, especially from Google, lobbying against those interests. Lobbying is an enormous cluster fuck and there's almost always a significant counter-party on any given issue. There isn't much evidence of a company's lobbying dollars actually impacting a lawmakers' decision, because they usually receive a tide of money and research from both sides. It's a fun narrative to play out, but the academic research on lobbying doesn't support it. This is flat-out false. There is plenty of scientific research documenting that lobbying does have an impact on what policymakers vote for and support in terms of policies. Here's an example. Here's another one. And another. Did you want another one? OK, there you go. This isn't to say that lobbyists always get their way, obviously. But to argue that lobbying targeted at policymakers (and not the population) doesn't have an impact on votes is simply not true. 1) I didn't say lobbying didn't impact votes. Lobbying's impact is generally on the public, which impacts votes. On politicians, its impact is in getting politicians to avoid taking on a subject, but it has dramatically less effect in convincing politicians of a position.
No, these studies detail lobbying efforts largely aimed directly at policymakers, not the public (although at least one also takes into account grassroots lobbying). Your assertion that lobbying targeted at policymakers (as opposed to targeted at the public) has little impact is simply not supported by the literature.
On February 29 2016 06:34 Jibba wrote:2) It's clear you just Googled "lobbying + impact study" and didn't even read the abstracts. From one of those papers. Show nested quote +This study tests the common assumption that wealthier interest groups have an advantage in policymaking by considering the lobbyist’s experience, connections, and lobbying intensity as well as the organization’s resources. Combining newly gathered information about lobbyists’ resources and policy outcomes with the largest survey of lobbyists ever conducted, I find surprisingly little relationship between organizations’ financial resources and their policy success—but greater money is linked to certain lobbying tactics and traits, and some of these are linked to greater policy success. The third link details the effect of negative lobbying (which is largely comprised of the lobbying activity I'm describing) vs. positive lobbying (which I'm saying isn't very often used or effective). Lobbies, both those representing constituent groups and professional groups, can pretty easily scare politicians out of things. They don't push them into things very easily.
I've read papers examining the effects of lobbying in the course of my studies, and those five studies were the first that came up on Google Scholar -- not only did I read the abstracts, but it seems that you didn't read the rest of the sentence you highlighted. Here, let me help you:
This study tests the common assumption that wealthier interest groups have an advantage in policymaking by considering the lobbyist’s experience, connections, and lobbying intensity as well as the organization’s resources. Combining newly gathered information about lobbyists’ resources and policy outcomes with the largest survey of lobbyists ever conducted, I find surprisingly little relationship between organizations’ financial resources and their policy success—but greater money is linked to certain lobbying tactics and traits, and some of these are linked to greater policy success.
With regards to the rest of your post, first, you were initially arguing that lobbyists only had an indirect influence on policymakers, through their impact on the public -- negative lobbying can be direct as well, and it does have an impact. Second, I just provided you with several articles which show that direct lobbying, including positive lobbying, can have a very real impact -- again, not by influencing the public then having policymakers follow the public, but by targeting policymakers directly. Your initial post was just not true...
edit: Apologies for the confrontational tone.
|
On February 29 2016 07:17 Nyxisto wrote:
not sending every black person to prison would be a start I guess. Not everything needs to be a business
All the people always thumping the constitution standing up for the systemic violations of our constitutional rights would be a nice way to help prevent that.
|
On February 29 2016 06:58 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 06:15 kwizach wrote:On February 29 2016 06:10 jcarlsoniv wrote:I remember when she was snubbed by the DNC over debate schedule shit, I was thinking she would be an interesting VP option. She's probably a little too young for it, but damn she has an impressive resume for being only 34. By the way, didn't you just lose a bet? ,-) canceled it i think, we never made it super official. maybe ill make jcarl make his sigs about penises, but idc that much tbh.
I don't know, seemed pretty official to me :p
GreenHorizons, still not ready to bet over the Democratic nominee?
|
On February 29 2016 07:24 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 06:58 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 29 2016 06:15 kwizach wrote:On February 29 2016 06:10 jcarlsoniv wrote:I remember when she was snubbed by the DNC over debate schedule shit, I was thinking she would be an interesting VP option. She's probably a little too young for it, but damn she has an impressive resume for being only 34. By the way, didn't you just lose a bet? ,-) canceled it i think, we never made it super official. maybe ill make jcarl make his sigs about penises, but idc that much tbh. I don't know, seemed pretty official to me :p GreenHorizons, still not ready to bet over the Democratic nominee?
After Nevada, ticklish mentioned not caring about the bet. To be frank, I don't care all that much either way.
Your obsession with betting is odd here. Yes, Hillary would be the smart bet to make purely because of probability, but I have someone I would prefer to win over her. If I were to truly make a bet that mattered, it would be betting against what I want to happen.
|
On February 29 2016 02:57 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 02:19 IgnE wrote:
the purveyor of world currency has the luxury of having open "consumer" markets doesnt it? and gatt and its progeny exist so that its investor class has access to any productive markets it needs to realize return here or elsewhere.
seems like you are using a narrow definition of "free trade" to make arguments here. lets abolish IP protections and see what happens. the Us is effectively operating a "global" US regime wherein other countries have to play by the US rules with regard to IP, capital restrictions, financing regulations, and the rest but don't have the privileges accorded to a US state, operating as resource centers and cheap labor for the home market. not sure why you'd see ip as the problem. part of development of higher value production is ip protection. middle income trap countries would do well to have more ip protection currency war stuff would just give other currencies the advantage. free trade as labor arbitrage by u.s. firms is the only thing i see as a legit argument here and it is indeed a serious if not fundamental problem but this is basically inevitable anyway given the economy of scale involved. allowing global scale economic organixation leads to a lot of inequality but it is overall more efficient. you would want the redistribution and taxation to keep up along with human development of those left behind.
IP is offensive in principle (owning ideas) and antidemocratic in practice (despite what airhead artists like taylor swift might say). Freeing up ideas frees up people to put those ideas to productive use. The best way of alleviating poverty would be to put everything on the internet, make it all free, and then distribute it to every mind on the globe. IP functions today as a massive rent extraction tool for the most developed economies (read: ours and our vassal states), both through overt extraction mechanisms and through limiting development.
|
On February 29 2016 07:33 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 07:24 kwizach wrote:On February 29 2016 06:58 ticklishmusic wrote:On February 29 2016 06:15 kwizach wrote:On February 29 2016 06:10 jcarlsoniv wrote:I remember when she was snubbed by the DNC over debate schedule shit, I was thinking she would be an interesting VP option. She's probably a little too young for it, but damn she has an impressive resume for being only 34. By the way, didn't you just lose a bet? ,-) canceled it i think, we never made it super official. maybe ill make jcarl make his sigs about penises, but idc that much tbh. I don't know, seemed pretty official to me :p GreenHorizons, still not ready to bet over the Democratic nominee? After Nevada, ticklish mentioned not caring about the bet. To be frank, I don't care all that much either way. Your obsession with betting is odd here. Yes, Hillary would be the smart bet to make purely because of probability, but I have someone I would prefer to win over her. If I were to truly make a bet that mattered, it would be betting against what I want to happen.
There are two people I would enjoy making a bet with, and both because they keep declaring Hillary will lose horribly (one in the primary, the other in the general election): GH and xDaunt. I don't mind that much, though ,-)
|
On February 29 2016 07:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 07:17 Nyxisto wrote:
not sending every black person to prison would be a start I guess. Not everything needs to be a business All the people always thumping the constitution standing up for the systemic violations of our constitutional rights would be a nice way to help prevent that.
i am pretty sure the founders did not mean to apply the constitution to those brown people
thats what constitutional originalism is about...
|
Canada11363 Posts
I don't think IP is bad in principle, but bad in practice. I think one think that would help in the modern discourse of IP is to bring back some of the original language when copyright and patent laws were debated in the States. It should be recognized that what is being granted is a monopoly. And there is very naturally a suspicion of granting monopolies, it should be considered a natural right, but a compromise in order "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
There is value in granting a monopoly for patents and copyright for a limited time. But those limits have disappeared, the idea of monopoly has been taken for granted and here we are. But 'monopoly' needs to reenter our vocabulary when discussing copyright. It needs to be seen as a compromise of the free market in order to gain a benefit for the public... but that the public benefit diminishes the longer the monopoly is held.
In other news, I guess Trump would like to open up libel laws to sue the media if he gets into power...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
