A Fundamental Disconnect between "We the People" and Them the Banks

Today I'd like to talk about the plutocracy. The very rich and very powerful moneyed interests that have taken our government from "We the people" to "We the wealthy and powerful" ...

A fundamental part of this problem is the pervasiveness and power of corporations in our economy and our political process. The recent Citizens United Supreme Court ruling opened up nearly limitless campaign spending for corporations and this all goes back to corporate personhood, which, like most policy changes, was based on what seemed like a good idea at the time. The original idea was that if a corporation were not a person, they could not be sued by individuals. So that's a good thing, right? The trouble is the unintended consequences. That corporate personhood has now been extended to freedom of speech. But corporations, particularly successful corporations, have far more resources to get their free speech out into the public arena. I can't afford TV spots or radio ads or product placement. Most of us can't.

We were warned.

By Thomas Jefferson, "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to bid defiance to our laws."

And even Adam Smith, though corporations as they existed even in Jefferson's time were much different than what Smith experienced. He only saw the corruption and grasp for power of joint-stock companies like the East India Trading Company. And that was enough to warn us against them. Of course, that's now what anyone learns in school about him.

Bill Moyers' recent speech at Boston University elucidates the issues here much better than I could hope to do.

Noam Chomsky, of course, has written extensively about it, but I found this piece particularly interesting. He lays out the historical development of corporations and at least partly explores why corporations maybe didn't need to be granted the same rights as individuals, but that the courts and lawyers made sure it happened.

You could argue that none of this really matters. We've always had wealthy people manipulating the government to their own advantage. And I'd totally agree with that. The trouble I have with corporations exerting this same power is that corporations do not have the same incentives as individuals. Even someone as insanely rich as Vanderbilt or Rockefeller or Gates still has to live in a community. They are still influenced positively or negatively by changes in their community. And as such they have a non-financial incentive to provide benefit to that community. That's why these giants of industry are also such philanthropists - giving back to the community to build a university or a hospital or an art museum.

But how often do you see corporations taking their profits and making enormous contributions to the common good? It's startlingly rare. There is no incentive to do so for a corporation. In fact, a corporation has a disincentive to reduce its bottom line. A wealthy person doesn't mind parting with some wealth for a good cause - they know they have more money than they could ever spend. A wealthy corporation doesn't think that way. The profits earned today become shareholder dividends tomorrow and help keep the corporation solvent in hard times. But it's all about money. Anything else is secondary. Any corporate investment in a community is largely for its own good. To build a stronger workforce, to improve infrastructure, etc.

But what is money? Money is simply convenient way to transfer value. My effort, or "work" has a value. Likewise, your "work" has a value. But I can't directly trade my work for your work unless your work is exactly the kind of work I need and my work is exactly the kind of work you need. That's what makes bartering inefficient. You spend too much time looking for someone with which to trade work. Rather, we use money to simplify this process. I am paid by someone who values my work. I pay someone whose work I value. And they pay you for your work.

So why did money become so damned important? Why is this now the measure of a man? A measure of a person's value? It's absurd, but we're so caught up in spending our lives trying to earn a living we forget largely what makes a human being.

And through corporate personhood we've taken this all a step further. Now there are entities, or "persons", whose entire purpose on earth is to make money. Not to provide comfort to a sick relative. Not to create a work of art. Not to play in a band. Not to cook a meal for friends. Not to read a book. Not to swim in the ocean. Not to do anything that makes us human ... just to make money. And these "persons" have become the most powerful in our society.

It's destructive and it's unsustainable. And it's only getting worse.


What brought on this particular blog entry today was reading that Representative Spencer Bachus (AL-R), the incoming Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee was quoted as saying, "In Washington, the view is that the banks are to be regulated, and my view is that Washington and the regulators are there to serve the banks." This is the man set to lead the House Committee for regulation of financial services. We're just over 2 years since this same financial services industry destroyed our economy. And now we're seating a guy who thinks the purpose of the government is to serve the banks.


I'm disgusted. And you should be too.