This randomness is of course the source of what we often deplore as procrastination, but I’m realizing it can also set free creativity, by presenting side by side concepts that seem only very loosely related at first. So here is my starting point, a very insightful remark on what difference it makes if we speak about Capitalism or Free Market Economy, from John Kenneth Galbraith, Canadian-American economist and author, published in the article Free Market Fraud in The Progressive magazine in 1999:

Let’s begin with capitalism, a word that has gone largely out of fashion. The approved reference now is to the market system. This shift minimizes–indeed, deletes–the role of wealth in the economic and social system. And it sheds the adverse connotation going back to Marx. Instead of the owners of capital or their attendants in control, we have the admirably impersonal role of market forces. It would be hard to think of a change in terminology more in the interest of those to whom money accords power. They have now a functional anonymity.

He goes on to denounce many instances where we (as a society as well as our appointed specialists on that matter, economists) fail to see the power workings of the „Free Market Economy“ and especially its influence over the government.

This argument, including its reference to how the public discourse about the issue is confused by objectivist language, could come straight out of a sketch-book of my own critiques of Capitalism (see NeuerPlan, „new plan“), even though the article is very short, and mostly stays on common knowledge grounds using the american military industry as its main example. (Oh I wish I’d come around to completing my own series of critique begun long ago!)

Now, this thought is not new to me in itself, but became more urgent when I came across a definition of Fascism that has some authority, coming from the Italian self-described „philosopher of Fascism“ Giovanni Gentile and being endorsed by Mussolini:

Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.

(This, by the way, is quoted from the FAQ of the „Political Compass“ where you can localize yourself and some historical figures politically on the dimensions of „Economic Left/Right“ and „Social Libertarian/Authoritarian“. The FAQ is much more interesting than the actual test, though.)

And the suggested consequence, that increased influence / merger of corporate interests and government leads onto the continuum of fascist politics, is pretty plausible to me. And reminded me of a (only partly humorous) postcard I found when I was in Stanford almost three years ago, which features a summary of „Early Warning Signs of Fascism“ (claiming to be from independent research on actual fascist regimes, but according to a quick search more plausibly just written down in an Op-Ed in 2004, itself still worthy reading and considering):

The argument, which the author (Laurence W. Britt) also put forward in his book „June, 2004″ is that in the Bush era, America was visibly moving in that direction. How implausible is it to assume that again, corporate interests‘ hold of the government had a role to play in this?

True to my current randomness, and to end on a more cheerful tune on this sunny Sunday afternoon, here a cartoon of Capitalisms core problem by Dan Perjovschi.

Obama has been told by Israel-firsters in the US that his position on moving rapidly to a two-state solution endangers his ability to fund-raise among Jewish Americans (who provide a vastly disproportionate amount of money for political campaigns, estimated as high as 65% among Democrats) and therefore could imperil his campaign for a second term.

A quick research on Wikipedia contrasts this with the percentage of the US population identifying as of Jewish religion: 1.7% (by the way making them the leading non-Christian faith, excluding Atheists I suppose).

Now, there unfortunately is no source for Informed Comments numbers, but this is stunning. At the same time, the claim that the percentage of donations from Jewish Americans is especially high among Democrats would illustrate that the Israel question is not what motivates them the most. I remember a fascinating and disturbing discussion (more of a lecture actually) with a self-proclaimed „New York Jew“ back in California who told me that even though he is at odds with pretty much everything the Republicans stand for, he still votes for them because they are the only party with clear sight on Israel and „Islamo-Fascism“. It seems that, luckily, most of the people who share his faith don’t share his beliefs.

Anyway, another example of how money distorts politics, giving power to marginal interests. Unfortunately not as easy to solve as the ones relating to corporations, where a law limiting election-related spending seems like a pretty good idea to me. It has unfortunately recently been abolished by the Supreme Court.

Wealth begets power, which begets more wealth. During the savings-and-loan scandal of the 1980s—a scandal whose dimensions, by today’s standards, seem almost quaint—the banker Charles Keating was asked by a congressional committee whether the $1.5 million he had spread among a few key elected officials could actually buy influence. “I certainly hope so,” he replied. The Supreme Court, in its recent Citizens United case, has enshrined the right of corporations to buy government, by removing limitations on campaign spending. The personal and the political are today in perfect alignment. Virtually all U.S. senators, and most of the representatives in the House, are members of the top 1 percent when they arrive, are kept in office by money from the top 1 percent, and know that if they serve the top 1 percent well they will be rewarded by the top 1 percent when they leave office. By and large, the key executive-branch policymakers on trade and economic policy also come from the top 1 percent. When pharmaceutical companies receive a trillion-dollar gift—through legislation prohibiting the government, the largest buyer of drugs, from bargaining over price—it should not come as cause for wonder. It should not make jaws drop that a tax bill cannot emerge from Congress unless big tax cuts are put in place for the wealthy. Given the power of the top 1 percent, this is the way you would expect the system to work.

This is immediately followed by a description of what inequality does to society, and what the distorted representation of interests does to politics (apart from creating rules that sustain itself):

America’s inequality distorts our society in every conceivable way. There is, for one thing, a well-documented lifestyle effect—people outside the top 1 percent increasingly live beyond their means. Trickle-down economics may be a chimera, but trickle-down behaviorism is very real. Inequality massively distorts our foreign policy. The top 1 percent rarely serve in the military—the reality is that the “all-volunteer” army does not pay enough to attract their sons and daughters, and patriotism goes only so far. Plus, the wealthiest class feels no pinch from higher taxes when the nation goes to war: borrowed money will pay for all that. Foreign policy, by definition, is about the balancing of national interests and national resources. With the top 1 percent in charge, and paying no price, the notion of balance and restraint goes out the window. There is no limit to the adventures we can undertake; corporations and contractors stand only to gain. The rules of economic globalization are likewise designed to benefit the rich: they encourage competition among countries for business, which drives down taxes on corporations, weakens health and environmental protections, and undermines what used to be viewed as the “core” labor rights, which include the right to collective bargaining. Imagine what the world might look like if the rules were designed instead to encourage competition among countries for workers. Governments would compete in providing economic security, low taxes on ordinary wage earners, good education, and a clean environment—things workers care about. But the top 1 percent don’t need to care.

Looking at the similarity of this situation with what stirred public anger to the point of revolution in Arab countries, his conclusion is:

The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live. Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late.

Sounds pretty improbable, but then, that’s what everybody would have said about the „Arab Sping“ before it happened. And I think there is a lot of anger in the American society, just that the powers right now do a god job at directing it away from its real cause, and solution.

What I didn’t know is that with Brazil and Mexico, two rather big newly industrializing countries are implementing on a large scale programs that transfer cash to the extremely poor, on conditions that mostly center around caring for your and your children’s health and education. And they seem to do a surprisingly great job at reducing poverty:

Today, however, Brazil’s level of economic inequality is dropping at a faster rate than that of almost any other country. Between 2003 and 2009, the income of poor Brazilians has grown seven times as much as the income of rich Brazilians. Poverty has fallen during that time from 22 percent of the population to 7 percent.

Contrast this with the United States, where from 1980 to 2005, more than four-fifths of the increase in Americans’ income went to the top 1 percent of earners.

The scientific evidence linking positive developments in the countries to these programs seem to be sound, even though I didn’t have time to search or read any primary literature:

The idea’s other purpose — to give children more education and better health — is longer term and harder to measure. But measured it is — Oportunidades is probably the most-studied social program on the planet. The program has an evaluation unit and publishes all data. There have also been hundreds of studies by independent academics. The research indicates that conditional cash transfer programs in Mexico and Brazil do keep people healthier, and keep kids in school.

The anecdotic, journalistic evidence sounds very convincing too:

When I traveled in Mexico in 2008 to report on Oportunidades, I met family after family with a distinct before and after story. Parents whose work consisted of using a machete to cut grass had children who, thanks to Oportunidades, had finished high school and were now studying accounting or nursing. Some families had older children who were malnourished as youngsters, but younger children who had always been healthy because Oportunidades had arrived in time to help them eat better. In the city of Venustiano Carranza, in Mexico’s Puebla state, I met Hortensia Alvarez Montes, a 54-year-old widow whose only income came from taking in laundry. Her education stopped in sixth grade, as did that of her first three children. But then came Oportunidades, which kept her two youngest children in school. They were both finishing high school when I visited her. One of them told me she planned to attend college.

For remaining questions, e.g. regarding if these programs can work in even poorer countries and on smaller scale (yes), or in developed countries like the US (maybe), with corrupt and weak governments (pretty good) and if they benefit the surrounding society as well (quite strongly) I highly recommend reading the whole article and also a follow-up article answering readers‘ comments. You also get interesting specifics on the fine-tuning that makes the programs work so well, like this:

There are caps on the benefits, so it does not encourage larger families — in Mexico, for example, three children is the limit. More important, education for girls is the most effective contraceptive. The more educated the mother, the fewer the children.

I couldn’t figure out if there’s a serious possibility of one of these guys becoming the new chairman of the Energy Committee, but Joe Barton has been the „Ranking Member“, i.e. the leading minority member. It could be really funny if it wasn’t real:

If that leaves you depressed, maybe some good laughs about the Pope restore your humor:

The only thing I would like to add is that the pretty short periods of one-party government time are not lapses of the system, but a very valuable ingredient in themselves. The salt in the bipartisan soup if you will, little bursts of innovation and reform that are later smoothed out by bipartisan compromises.

And I think it is fascinating to note that in a completely different political system, Germany spends a lot of time in a similar bipartisan state as well.

In the midterm elections four years ago, candidates and their friends spent a little over $2.8 billion, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, to garner some 86 million votes. The cost was about $33 per voter. Data from this week’s election is still coming in. But it seems that total spending will hit $4 billion, which would make this year’s voters about $10 more expensive.

That is an increase of about 30%. This is as much a general trend as it is a jump due to a Supreme Court ruling relaxing the limitations on „independent“ spending.

Here’s the hard-to-believe history of more direct money-for-vote transactions in the American past (and not even very remote past):

But as we contemplate this rush of money, which shows signs only of increasing, it is worth pausing to remember an era not too long ago when modern ethical niceties did not stand in the way of the purchase of power. In 19th-century New York, newspapers quoted the price of votes. In 1880, The Elizabethtown Post quoted a vote in Ulster County at $25. In 1885, The Elmira Daily Advertiser quoted votes from $10 to $27.

“When a good man for a good purpose buys the vote of a fellow man, the voter — being a principal and a sovereign — is free to do as he chooses; the act is right,” thundered the minister Thomas K. Beecher in The Watkins Express in Schuyler County, N.Y., on Nov. 13, 1879. The practice died only when the secret ballot introduced in 1890 made it possible for voters to deceive their paymasters. So political parties took to paying sympathizers of the opposition to stay home instead.

This latter practice still seems to be in high esteem, if more indirectly, with a substantial number of the „independent“ advertisements being attack ads against a candidate. And a negative maximum has been reached with an ad series by „Latinos for Reform“, a conservative interest group that urged latino voters to stay home (the video is on youtube, and the NYTimes has some background coverage).

Interestingly, the metaphor of parasites came to my mind even before that analogy was mentioned in the article. And while it is used there with the negative implication it has in everyday language, I immediately had an evolutionary perspective on it as well, where parasites are acknowledged for regulating the growth of their hosts and contributing to a dynamic balance.

Hardly surprising, the public opinion on them is mixed:

Over the last few decades the trial bar has built what amounts to a private-enterprise regulatory machine, compiling an impressive string of victories over — or at least a series of large settlements from — the most powerful corporations in the world. Some call them parasites and label their style of litigation the “American disease.” Others see them as the last truly effective check on corporate power left in the U.S. system.

The negative image is associated in the public memory with cases like the one of a grandma burning herself on McDonalds Coffee and being awarded $640,000 in compensation. (I remember reading somewhere that this case was not as absurd as it may seem, because McDonalds coffee is near boiling when you buy it due to the way they store their coffee, while home-made one is considerably cooler).

The interesting thing is, of course, that this regulatory function is itself a child of the market it helps regulate, and far from being a selfless act:

Make no mistake, Buzbee is an entrepreneur of a certain kind. As do most trial lawyers, he spends money to pry evidence of wrongdoing out of corporations that he can then leverage for a maximum return on investment. When I asked him what his product was, he thought for a moment before responding, “Fairness.” However you react to his answer, lawyers like Buzbee need a big wrong to make their business model a success, which is why his current project revolves around the offshore explosion aboard BP’s Deepwater Horizon, which killed 11 people aboard the floating rig and released an estimated 200 million gallons of crude into the Gulf of Mexico.

They have definitely come a long way, with smoking cases marking a high point:

The BP disaster comes at a pivotal juncture for the American trial bar. In many respects its power and influence hit its zenith in the late 1990s, when a coalition suing the tobacco industry on behalf of 46 states reached a landmark $206 billion settlement in a case that both fundamentally altered the public’s perception of cigarette smoking and made billionaires out of several of the lawyers involved. That settlement led to predictions, both dire and hopeful, that the trial bar would use its newfound financial clout to go after a host of other industries, transforming the face of American capitalism.

It’s hard to tell if this system is working well, and if it provides a viable alternative to stricter government regulation. What’s sure is that corporate interest has worked hard (and successfully) at reducing the pain:

Instead, the past decade has seen a steady diminishment in the trial bar’s influence in American life. In the courts, a series of rulings has limited the size of punitive-damage awards, the trial bar’s most potent weapon when going after corporations. In Congress and state legislatures, the tort-reform movement, spearheaded by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, has scored a string of legislative victories, capping damage awards and limiting the scope of class-action litigation.

Which might be a partial explanation to an answer I keep asking myself: What do corporations get for spending so much money on elections?