On October 31 2012 13:52 sam!zdat wrote: The problem with unions is that the economy has become so fragmented and departmentalized that unions just serve as interest groups for particular kinds of workers, rather than serving the interests of workers in a broader sense, like I guess they might have been able to when we were an industrial nation (don't know much about union history).
but if you don't have collective bargaining then capital just wins so idk how you fix this short of an actual left political party...
I mean, this whole problem would be negligible if we just agreed to have real campaign finance reform and lobbying reform. sigh.
How do you do that, though? I don't really see how you legislate against these things
You don't legislate against it, per se. By reforming campaign financing you remove the necessity for unions to do some of the things they do. Like, do we honestly think the teachers want to spend millions of dollars fighting propositions?
On October 31 2012 13:35 Souma wrote: Edit: btw I hear you guys talk about "school choice" a lot, in San Diego we can pick any public school in the city that we want to go to (backed by a great school bus system). Is it not like that in other cities?
I don't think that is the norm. No place I lived ever had that, although I finished high school in 2000...
+1 more reason why San Diego is the best city in America.
I guess what I'm saying is, I don't really understand how you legislate against people turning money into political power. It seems like an enforcement nightmare, just like trying to collect taxes from mitt romney
I mean, this whole problem would be negligible if we just agreed to have real campaign finance reform and lobbying reform. sigh.
I actually agree with you on this but where I disagree is that I will take any opportunity to lower political spending whenever I can get it. And if we're all being honest here about what prop 32 does and what it fails to do it's the following.
It does limit corporations and unions from direct deducting dues from paychecks and spending on political campaigns without that persons direct consent. This portion is good and nobody...not even you Souma can deny that with a straight face.
The law indirectly targets unions more than corporations however because corporations don't currently deduction from paychecks for political spending in the first place. Only unions do this.
What the law doesn't do is ban other methods of political spending by corporations or unions so there are other places that special interests can still utilize.
In my opinion the law is an amazing opportunity to limit spending but it doesn't go far enough to expressly also limit all union and corporate political spending....but then again that may not be possible with out a constitutional amendment.
Either way I'm saying yes to 32 because its a step in the right direction and we'll never get a 100% fix in one bill and saying that you won't vote for something until you do feels like an excuse to just continue backing unions on this.
On October 31 2012 14:01 sam!zdat wrote: I guess what I'm saying is, I don't really understand how you legislate against people turning money into political power. It seems like an enforcement nightmare, just like trying to collect taxes from mitt romney
It is definitely not something that can be fixed by just reforming the campaign system. There will always be some people trying to leverage politicians through favors and money regardless of what we do. To help curb the problem though it would be necessary to have drastic governmental reform as well.
Despite what people say, money is quite obviously speech. If you buy an ad in a paper, it costs money. If you buy television or radio airtime, post up signs, print out pamphlets to hand out, hire people to help, all of it costs money. You can't restrict spending without restricting speech.
I mean, this whole problem would be negligible if we just agreed to have real campaign finance reform and lobbying reform. sigh.
I actually agree with you on this but where I disagree is that I will take any opportunity to lower political spending whenever I can get it. And if we're all being honest here about what prop 32 does and what it fails to do it's the following.
It does limit corporations and unions from direct deducting dues from paychecks and spending on political campaigns without that persons direct consent. This portion is good and nobody...not even you Souma can deny that with a straight face.
The law indirectly targets unions more than corporations however because corporations don't currently deduction from paychecks for political spending in the first place. Only unions do this.
What the law doesn't do is ban other methods of political spending by corporations or unions so there are other places that special interests can still utilize.
In my opinion the law is an amazing opportunity to limit spending but it doesn't go far enough to expressly also limit all union and corporate political spending....but then again that may not be possible with out a constitutional amendment.
Either way I'm saying yes to 32 because its a step in the right direction and we'll never get a 100% fix in one bill and saying that you won't vote for something until you do feels like an excuse to just continue backing unions on this.
If people don't consent they already have the option to opt out. I don't think it's an amazing opportunity because I feel if corporations have bigger leverage, we'll never have real campaign finance reform. That's just my two cents though.
On October 31 2012 14:05 jdseemoreglass wrote: Despite what people say, money is quite obviously speech. If you buy an ad in a paper, it costs money. If you buy television or radio airtime, post up signs, print out pamphlets to hand out, hire people to help, all of it costs money. You can't restrict spending without restricting speech.
No. It may cost you money to buy a pencil and paper but it does not cost you a penny to write what you actually think. It may cost you to buy cameras and to broadcast yourself across the networks but it does not cost you a dime to utter words from your mouth. It does not cost you anything to construct an idea and it does not cost you anything to hold a belief aside from your utmost devotion. If speech is free then money cannot possibly be speech. It is merely a means to help publish speech.
If people all want to band together and scream at the top of their lungs they are free to. If they want to walk the streets to help advertise their beliefs they are free to. A camera is not speech. Paper is not speech.
On October 31 2012 14:05 jdseemoreglass wrote: Despite what people say, money is quite obviously speech. If you buy an ad in a paper, it costs money. If you buy television or radio airtime, post up signs, print out pamphlets to hand out, hire people to help, all of it costs money. You can't restrict spending without restricting speech.
I know you're not disagreeing with me, but yes, that's my point. I think the idea that we are going to a) keep our current political system and b) "get money out of politics" is a fantasy. I just don't see how you do it.
On October 31 2012 14:05 jdseemoreglass wrote: Despite what people say, money is quite obviously speech. If you buy an ad in a paper, it costs money. If you buy television or radio airtime, post up signs, print out pamphlets to hand out, hire people to help, all of it costs money. You can't restrict spending without restricting speech.
I know you're not disagreeing with me, but yes, that's my point. I think the idea that we are going to a) keep our current political system and b) "get money out of politics" is a fantasy. I just don't see how you do it.
Realistically you can never fully get money out of politics, but things can be a lot better than they are now.
On October 31 2012 13:52 sam!zdat wrote: The problem with unions is that the economy has become so fragmented and departmentalized that unions just serve as interest groups for particular kinds of workers, rather than serving the interests of workers in a broader sense, like I guess they might have been able to when we were an industrial nation (don't know much about union history).
but if you don't have collective bargaining then capital just wins so idk how you fix this short of an actual left political party...
I mean, this whole problem would be negligible if we just agreed to have real campaign finance reform and lobbying reform. sigh.
How do you do that, though? I don't really see how you legislate against these things
You don't legislate against it, per se. By reforming campaign financing you remove the necessity for unions to do some of the things they do. Like, do we honestly think the teachers want to spend millions of dollars fighting propositions?
On October 31 2012 13:35 Souma wrote: Edit: btw I hear you guys talk about "school choice" a lot, in San Diego we can pick any public school in the city that we want to go to (backed by a great school bus system). Is it not like that in other cities?
I don't think that is the norm. No place I lived ever had that, although I finished high school in 2000...
+1 more reason why San Diego is the best city in America.
On October 31 2012 14:05 jdseemoreglass wrote: Despite what people say, money is quite obviously speech. If you buy an ad in a paper, it costs money. If you buy television or radio airtime, post up signs, print out pamphlets to hand out, hire people to help, all of it costs money. You can't restrict spending without restricting speech.
But is all money considered free speech? Unrestricted spending money wherever? So rather than talking to a politician about a change I'd like implemented, I could instead give them money because that is also speech.
Even ignoring direct payment to politicians (or patronage for that matter), speech may cost money to get it out there. But with no restrictions on money spent we essentially cede public discourse to the very wealthy who can outbid or outbuy anyone. At least some restrictions seems in order I think.
And sure I'll agree that you can't entirely eliminate money/patronage in politics. But that isn't the same as abandoning the field altogether.
On October 31 2012 13:52 sam!zdat wrote: The problem with unions is that the economy has become so fragmented and departmentalized that unions just serve as interest groups for particular kinds of workers, rather than serving the interests of workers in a broader sense, like I guess they might have been able to when we were an industrial nation (don't know much about union history).
but if you don't have collective bargaining then capital just wins so idk how you fix this short of an actual left political party...
I mean, this whole problem would be negligible if we just agreed to have real campaign finance reform and lobbying reform. sigh.
How do you do that, though? I don't really see how you legislate against these things
You don't legislate against it, per se. By reforming campaign financing you remove the necessity for unions to do some of the things they do. Like, do we honestly think the teachers want to spend millions of dollars fighting propositions?
On October 31 2012 13:57 Signet wrote:
On October 31 2012 13:35 Souma wrote: Edit: btw I hear you guys talk about "school choice" a lot, in San Diego we can pick any public school in the city that we want to go to (backed by a great school bus system). Is it not like that in other cities?
I don't think that is the norm. No place I lived ever had that, although I finished high school in 2000...
+1 more reason why San Diego is the best city in America.
If people don't consent they already have the option to opt out.
According to what you said the law then has zero effect on unions or corporations at all and therefore would not matter if it were passed or not.
Why then are the unions in California spending almost 70 million dollars to defeat a bill that doesn't change anything?
Why is it a bad thing to ask someone their permission?
Perhaps because if you did some people would not grant it? Because gasp! perhaps not everyone actually wants to contribute to a cause they might not support?
Yes 32 does nothing to deter other types of political contributions...but what it does do is give people a choice.
A choice that unions don't want their members to have.
If people don't consent they already have the option to opt out.
According to what you said the law then has zero effect on unions or corporations at all and therefore would not matter if it were passed or not.
Why then are the unions in California spending almost 70 million dollars to defeat a bill that doesn't change anything?
Why is it a bad thing to ask someone their permission?
Perhaps because if you did some people would not grant it? Because gasp! perhaps not everyone actually wants to contribute to a cause they might not support?
Yes 32 does nothing to deter other types of political contributions...but what it does do is give people a choice.
A choice that unions don't want their members to have.
I choose, choice.
Huh, of course it has effect. What are you even saying?
At the moment, if an employee does not agree with what the union is doing, they opt out.
Pass Prop. 32, then employees don't need to opt out - unions are just prohibited entirely from using the deductions.
If people don't consent they already have the option to opt out.
According to what you said the law then has zero effect on unions or corporations at all and therefore would not matter if it were passed or not.
Why then are the unions in California spending almost 70 million dollars to defeat a bill that doesn't change anything?
Why is it a bad thing to ask someone their permission?
Perhaps because if you did some people would not grant it? Because gasp! perhaps not everyone actually wants to contribute to a cause they might not support?
Yes 32 does nothing to deter other types of political contributions...but what it does do is give people a choice.
A choice that unions don't want their members to have.
I choose, choice.
It seems to give people a choice only if their wages are garnished in the name of a "fee." If the business doesn't give you a raise, but in turn gives $20,000 to a campaign, that's fine because they didn't explicitly dock your pay in order to give to a campaign, even if that is essentially happening.
On October 31 2012 11:50 jdseemoreglass wrote: No, the most vapid posts are one's that attack a post without offering a single argument or constructive criticism in response.
There's nothing in there one can respond to, hence the use of the word "vapid."
There is a notion that you paint across multiple posts that bothers me. What makes government spending necessarily inefficient (or less efficient) than consumer or business spending?
What makes it less efficient is the absence of both the price mechanism and the profit incentive.
How do neither of those exist? We don't live in a world where government doesn't have to pay for goods or services at market competitive prices, and their capital resources, while large, are budgeted tightly, and are limited in turn. Profit incentive is replaced by the incentive to get reelected, which should largely be judged by how effectively the people are governed, which includes the services and goods government provides.
That's often incorrect. The government doesn't price, say, K-12 education at a market rate and then tax people based on that market rate. The government basically takes their cost (which may or may not be reasonable) and passes it onto the taxpayer.
Which is what businesses do when they provide a product or service. They offer it at cost, which may or may not be reasonable, and then expect to profit as well. Consumers are then supposed to weigh the costs and benefits of the product/service and determine if it is reasonable for them.
The market only serves as an empty term to pin efficiency to as well. There is no "market price," only the price people are willing to pay for a good or service. The closest thing you have to the idealized notion of a "market" is the reference point people have of different prices being offered for differing quality of the same product/service.
No, generally businesses don't simply do cost plus pricing. The cost of comparable goods and services play a huge role in determining pricing.
For example, GM couldn't simply pass its high production costs onto the consumer. If it could it never would have need to seek bankruptcy protection. The reason it couldn't pass its cost onto the consumer was that competitors could offer comparable cars at a lower price and still turn a profit - because they had more efficient cost structures.
The same competitive pressure doesn't exist in public education and so there is no check on inefficient spending.
Competing cost of goods play a different role depending on the industry involved. Sometimes that role is huge, and people hunt for the lowest price available. Other times, the role is almost nonexistent, where people want the job done (right) and weigh the price against their available finances.
As for education, the pressure exists in another way. People are always clamoring for more government spending and/or lower taxes, so education is often in competition with other departments for a limited pool of resources. There are a ton of checks on inefficient spending, and budgets are often strictly controlled and rigid in implementation. After all, if the education system is 5% under budget, that's a lot of money that can go to roads/transportation, parks, health, public safety, or a future tax break.
Your real gripe seems to be that schools don't go "bankrupt" enough, but when they do, it greatly impacts the lives of the students involved. Instead of getting a poor education, they're stuck with no education.
Yeah, I don't want schools to go "bankrupt" ... whatever that means. But back on topic...
Strictly controlled budgets are not a sufficient check on inefficient spending in the case of education because the body of knowledge as to what constitutes efficient vs inefficient spending is extremely poor. You simply do not have the level of internal and external numerical analysis over government budgets as you do with private businesses. It just doesn't exist.
The incentives you mention aren't that great either. Getting the education system 5% under budget opens you up to attack for 'cutting education spending' while benefiting the next person in office.
If people don't consent they already have the option to opt out.
According to what you said the law then has zero effect on unions or corporations at all and therefore would not matter if it were passed or not.
Why then are the unions in California spending almost 70 million dollars to defeat a bill that doesn't change anything?
Why is it a bad thing to ask someone their permission?
Perhaps because if you did some people would not grant it? Because gasp! perhaps not everyone actually wants to contribute to a cause they might not support?
Yes 32 does nothing to deter other types of political contributions...but what it does do is give people a choice.
A choice that unions don't want their members to have.
I choose, choice.
It seems to give people a choice only if their wages are garnished in the name of a "fee." If the business doesn't give you a raise, but in turn gives $20,000 to a campaign, that's fine because they didn't explicitly dock your pay in order to give to a campaign, even if that is essentially happening.
Its almost certainly coming out of the owner's pocket, not the worker's.
On October 31 2012 11:50 jdseemoreglass wrote: No, the most vapid posts are one's that attack a post without offering a single argument or constructive criticism in response.
There's nothing in there one can respond to, hence the use of the word "vapid."
There is a notion that you paint across multiple posts that bothers me. What makes government spending necessarily inefficient (or less efficient) than consumer or business spending?
What makes it less efficient is the absence of both the price mechanism and the profit incentive.
How do neither of those exist? We don't live in a world where government doesn't have to pay for goods or services at market competitive prices, and their capital resources, while large, are budgeted tightly, and are limited in turn. Profit incentive is replaced by the incentive to get reelected, which should largely be judged by how effectively the people are governed, which includes the services and goods government provides.
That's often incorrect. The government doesn't price, say, K-12 education at a market rate and then tax people based on that market rate. The government basically takes their cost (which may or may not be reasonable) and passes it onto the taxpayer.
Which is what businesses do when they provide a product or service. They offer it at cost, which may or may not be reasonable, and then expect to profit as well. Consumers are then supposed to weigh the costs and benefits of the product/service and determine if it is reasonable for them.
The market only serves as an empty term to pin efficiency to as well. There is no "market price," only the price people are willing to pay for a good or service. The closest thing you have to the idealized notion of a "market" is the reference point people have of different prices being offered for differing quality of the same product/service.
No, generally businesses don't simply do cost plus pricing. The cost of comparable goods and services play a huge role in determining pricing.
For example, GM couldn't simply pass its high production costs onto the consumer. If it could it never would have need to seek bankruptcy protection. The reason it couldn't pass its cost onto the consumer was that competitors could offer comparable cars at a lower price and still turn a profit - because they had more efficient cost structures.
The same competitive pressure doesn't exist in public education and so there is no check on inefficient spending.
Competing cost of goods play a different role depending on the industry involved. Sometimes that role is huge, and people hunt for the lowest price available. Other times, the role is almost nonexistent, where people want the job done (right) and weigh the price against their available finances.
As for education, the pressure exists in another way. People are always clamoring for more government spending and/or lower taxes, so education is often in competition with other departments for a limited pool of resources. There are a ton of checks on inefficient spending, and budgets are often strictly controlled and rigid in implementation. After all, if the education system is 5% under budget, that's a lot of money that can go to roads/transportation, parks, health, public safety, or a future tax break.
Your real gripe seems to be that schools don't go "bankrupt" enough, but when they do, it greatly impacts the lives of the students involved. Instead of getting a poor education, they're stuck with no education.
the body of knowledge as to what constitutes efficient vs inefficient spending is extremely poor.
I think this is the core of the problem, really. We don't really have a good theory as to what our school system is supposed to do, exactly. Everybody knows standardized tests are the total bullshit, but how else do you manage things at this kind of scale? The effect of large scale educational systems is to substitute training for education (because the former is easier to quantify - although there are cultural reasons for this as well, and the bourgeoisie doesn't care because their children get educated in private schools and they don't care about education for proles, only training).
I rather agree that we need to open up the school system to competing paradigms and let parents decide, but you need to do this in such a way that you aren't only benefitting already privileged populations with this (I feel like this happens more often than not with charter schools).
Either way, though, I think we are going to need to spend more money on education. I think we need more money AND more efficient spending. The way that textbook companies do business is also a problem and presents unnecessary burden for students, but that may be more of a problem for community colleges than high schools.
There is money that comes directly from the federal government, a per-vote subsidy (For every vote you receive in an election, you get some taxpayer money). This was also coupled with the introduction of spending limits.
The maximum any individual can contribute is $1,100 to the party and another $1100 to their representative. (There are loopholes but they aren't all too serious compared to what can be done by individuals in the states.
Corporations also have no voice. There are cases where political spending from a large number of individuals from the same company/group have used the contribution limit to a single candidate but these (I feel) pale in comparison to the massive amount of money in US politics.
On October 31 2012 11:50 jdseemoreglass wrote: No, the most vapid posts are one's that attack a post without offering a single argument or constructive criticism in response.
There's nothing in there one can respond to, hence the use of the word "vapid."
There is a notion that you paint across multiple posts that bothers me. What makes government spending necessarily inefficient (or less efficient) than consumer or business spending?
What makes it less efficient is the absence of both the price mechanism and the profit incentive.
How do neither of those exist? We don't live in a world where government doesn't have to pay for goods or services at market competitive prices, and their capital resources, while large, are budgeted tightly, and are limited in turn. Profit incentive is replaced by the incentive to get reelected, which should largely be judged by how effectively the people are governed, which includes the services and goods government provides.
That's often incorrect. The government doesn't price, say, K-12 education at a market rate and then tax people based on that market rate. The government basically takes their cost (which may or may not be reasonable) and passes it onto the taxpayer.
Which is what businesses do when they provide a product or service. They offer it at cost, which may or may not be reasonable, and then expect to profit as well. Consumers are then supposed to weigh the costs and benefits of the product/service and determine if it is reasonable for them.
The market only serves as an empty term to pin efficiency to as well. There is no "market price," only the price people are willing to pay for a good or service. The closest thing you have to the idealized notion of a "market" is the reference point people have of different prices being offered for differing quality of the same product/service.
No, generally businesses don't simply do cost plus pricing. The cost of comparable goods and services play a huge role in determining pricing.
For example, GM couldn't simply pass its high production costs onto the consumer. If it could it never would have need to seek bankruptcy protection. The reason it couldn't pass its cost onto the consumer was that competitors could offer comparable cars at a lower price and still turn a profit - because they had more efficient cost structures.
The same competitive pressure doesn't exist in public education and so there is no check on inefficient spending.
Competing cost of goods play a different role depending on the industry involved. Sometimes that role is huge, and people hunt for the lowest price available. Other times, the role is almost nonexistent, where people want the job done (right) and weigh the price against their available finances.
As for education, the pressure exists in another way. People are always clamoring for more government spending and/or lower taxes, so education is often in competition with other departments for a limited pool of resources. There are a ton of checks on inefficient spending, and budgets are often strictly controlled and rigid in implementation. After all, if the education system is 5% under budget, that's a lot of money that can go to roads/transportation, parks, health, public safety, or a future tax break.
Your real gripe seems to be that schools don't go "bankrupt" enough, but when they do, it greatly impacts the lives of the students involved. Instead of getting a poor education, they're stuck with no education.
the body of knowledge as to what constitutes efficient vs inefficient spending is extremely poor.
I think this is the core of the problem, really. We don't really have a good theory as to what our school system is supposed to do, exactly. Everybody knows standardized tests are the total bullshit, but how else do you manage things at this kind of scale? The effect of large scale educational systems is to substitute training for education (because the former is easier to quantify - although there are cultural reasons for this as well, and the bourgeoisie doesn't care because their children get educated in private schools and they don't care about education for proles, only training).
I rather agree that we need to open up the school system to competing paradigms and let parents decide, but you need to do this in such a way that you aren't only benefitting already privileged populations with this (I feel like this happens more often than not with charter schools).
Either way, though, I think we are going to need to spend more money on education. I think we need more money AND more efficient spending. The way that textbook companies do business is also a problem and presents unnecessary burden for students, but that may be more of a problem for community colleges than high schools.
Mmm well, like I mentioned before, in San Diego we can pick any public school in the city. Back in my day, though, when you applied for the high school, they took a couple of things into consideration, such as grades in middle school and affirmative action, so not just anyone could flock to the top school (but many did flock towards the #2 and #3 schools which ended up quite diverse).
And textbook companies are evil, christ. In Japan I'm not even sure I spent a fifth of what I usually pay here for textbooks.
Do you feel that the enforcement regime does a pretty good job of limiting corporations from doing political spending, or are there sneaky ways around it? How do you decide what constitues political advocacy?
EPT
