Something called progress.org on corporate welfare and free-market.net on the airline bailout. It is time that we recognize that the free market is being manipulated by some shady characters at the top. Not all, some.
Business could start by not lying on financial statements and shredding documents. Can we all agree that such behavior is not lassiez faire?
Nader is asking us to consider his assumptions. Each one is in it’s own way wrong-headed, but let me just address one or two to help illustrate where I think Nader and most leftists make their mistakes.
Capitalism requires a framework of law and order
I so disagree. In it’s most primitive, basic form, Capitalism is about making the most of a given situation in order to create profit for the capitalist. In an a perfectly competitive state, those with desired goods will charge whatever they can get from a buyer, regardless of what is fair, legal or ethical. We create laws in order to keep people from resorting to “jungle law”( for lack of better words) and because politicians in a democracy react to voters wishes, fears, and demands. Nowhere in economic theory does law and order have anything to do with the basic assumptions that the theory is constructed upon. Basic assumptions in economic theory have to do with perfect competition and the behavior of people who demand things that are scarce. So for Nader to suggest that our economic system is dependant on ( I suppose) his version of what law and order ought to be is just plain wrong. Capitalism is present in every society in one form or another and , I believe, a fact of human nature.
**Capitalist enterprises are expected to compete on an even playing field. **
Going along with what I said I believe in, nowhere is it written that everyone should or ought or ought to be expected to compete on an “even playing field” (whatever that means). This is one of those subtle terms that sounds benign, but if pressed, I suspect Nader’s idea of an even playing field would be anything but even. He doesn’t really say what this means by this. It is my belief, that in a democracy, where the federal government is capable and willing to levy huge taxes and impose enormous regualations, it is right and fair and typcial that a company or an industry would lobby government for preferential treatment. I say that were that the government was less involved in the affairs of business, business would be less involved in petitioning goverment. Business in a capitalist system is forever trying to increase it’s control of scarce goods so that it may increase it’s profits. This desire is manifested in many ways, lobbying goverment is just one. Other ways are thru product innovation, intelligent use of technology to control its supply chain and the hiring of smart dedicated employees that will help a firm reach their goal.
So, what do I actually believe?
I believe that the government taxes people too high, and redistributes too much of that money to corporations (along with everywhere else government sends the money). But since the goverment is in the business of taxing the shit out of people and since goverment is in the business of giving the money away in the form of grants, gifts, and subsidies, I think it is perfectly acceptable for business to attempt to curry favor of government in an effort to get more money.
The system sucks, but the system is working according to expectations one would have of a shitty system. I am sure Nader does not think it is wrong for government to tax business and give money to people he thinks are disadvantaged or oppressed. He is just full of it, and if some one smarter that me were to really put the screws to his philosphy and ideals, they would crumble.
About Nader-from what I’ve heard, however, he favors unions-as long as it’s not HIS employees.
I could be wrong-I’ll try and look it up.
Indeed he did, when the workers in the Multinational Monitor tried to do it. Fired the guy who was trying to organize. According to Nader, “I don’t think there is a role for unions in small nonprofit ‘cause’ organizations any more than … within a monastery or within a union.”
Some Ralph Nader cites:
Here’s one where Ralph bemoans the fact that people actually try to measure things: http://www.sfbg.com/nader/160.html
Here’s a letter from Ralph Nader to Bill Gates that is shocking in its disingenuousness, and calls on him to form a ‘conference of billionaires’ to determine what to do about wealth inequality: http://www.commondreams.org/pressreleases/July98/072798a.htm
The best example of Nader’s economic stupidity is his tireless fight against free trade. He opposes it in all its forms.
Columbia University economist Jagdish Bhagwati, during a debate with Nader, said that Nader’s ideas were “alarmist, often false and based on cheap rhetoric.”
Here is Nader’s nuanced, highly informed opinion of biotechnology: “Do we really want to let corporations have patents over life forms?”
Cite: http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/98/9.24.98/debate.html
Nader is also a strong proponent of the Tobin tax, which is at least debatable economically, but is completely unworkable from a practical standpoint - something Nader refuses to acknowledge because the Tobin Tax fits well into his anti-globalization worldview (which itself shows a lack of understanding of basic trade principles like the Theory of Competitive Advantage).
From this interview with Jim Lehrer: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/election/jan-june00/nader_6-30.html we learn that Nader would, if President:
[ul]
[li]Tax stock market speculation.[/li][li]Tax ‘urban sprawl’ (??)[/li][li]Tax all internet transactions[/li][li]Increase the progressivity in the tax system[/li][li]Publically fund all health care[/li][li]Increase the government’s power to plan and zone communities[/li][li]lower taxes on ‘honest labor’ (??) and food (???).[/li][li]Get rid of corporate subsidies and tax breaks (I guess unless the corporation is engaged in ‘honest labor’ or making food?)[/li][/ul]
Then there’s this exchange:
Yeah, he’s qualified to run the government because he has sued it more times than anyone else.
How can anyone take this guy seriously? All he does is spout bromides and homilies about ending greed and letting the little guy have more power. But his specific policy proposals tend towards not just heavy socialism, but strict engineering of society along the lines of what HE thinks is ‘right’. He doesn’t like urban sprawl, because he personally would rather live in a tiny urban apartment and take mass transit. So of course, all those people who have made personal choices to live in the suburbs are wrong, and we have to tax them for it and institute zoning laws that force people to live the ‘right’ way.
For all his populist rhetoric, the man is an authoritarian nut. Of course, those that agree with his ‘vision’ think that that is just fine. For those of us who don’t want to live in his carefully managed world, he would be frightening if he wasn’t utterly incapable of being elected.
I’m super pressed for time right now, so I won’t be able to do any further posting until tomorrow. Sam, it’s good to know that your view of government is so moderate.
I will limit myself to responding to a single statement by thermalribbon:
*" ‘Capitalism requires a framework of law and order’
I so disagree. In it’s most primitive, basic form, Capitalism is about making the most of a given situation in order to create profit for the capitalist. … [etc.]"*
You know, it’s funny how some people will disagree with the most innocuous statement so long as it’s been said by someone they’re sure they oppose.
I have a funny feeling that if someone had posted the statement “Capitalism requires a framework of law and order” and attributed it to Milton Friedman, or Alan Greenspan, or Calvin Coolidge that thermal would have so agreed.
thermal, without law and order there is no point in investing anything, and therefore no capitalism. Without law and order private property cannot be secure.
Notice how countries without reliable law and order–such as Afghanistan during its pre-Taliban period–did not have thriving capitalism. Notice that countries where capitalism thrives (from Britain in the 1780s to the G7 nations of today) have and invest a great deal in maintaining law and order. Notice that historically modern police and judicial systems arose in tandem with capitalism.
Name a single example of a thriving capitalist economy where there is no law and order.
I suppose this is the commons where the Pink Unicorns graze.
And this is exactly why economic theory falls short of explaining reality. Politics, culture, distribution systems, and consumer awareness are all intertwined in an actual economy.
Saying that we shouldn’t support failing corporations with tax dollars seems like the least objectionable of Nader’s governmental policies to a capitalist.
You seem to be contradicting yourself. If it’s the companies best interest to lobby, why would they stop just because the government stopped interfering with them?
This is the sort of thing that most americans would probably prefer and presumably Ralph Nader wants to encourage.
I agree with you up to a point. Large coorporations have much more lobbying power than a welfare recipient. And of course it’s not just lobbying but also spending power in political contributions. I’d like to think that my vote is more important than some company’s money.
And a politician that isn’t backed by corporate money has a pretty low chance of getting elected on the national level. The relationship is mutually beneficial in the short run. Neither one will let go too easily.
oooh that sounds so damning 
Back in the 60s and 70s Nader was a big fan of air bags, which are now standard. He wanted nothing to do with the seat belt part of the crusade, even though they were far less expensive and far more effective for safety. While I will certainly concede that current airbags same some lives, they are far less effective alone than selt belts, which he never stressed.
And as for his supposed anti-corporatism, which is slang for pure socialism in my opinion, look at his college Public Interest Research Group and its funding. In the colleges where this was railroaded through, each student pays a portion of their fees, which they may opt out of through many inconvenient steps designed to take more in time than the money is worth. These fees go to political advocacy of the PIRGs, as they are called, which are run behind closed doors and are unaccountable to anyone as far as I can figure out, except Ralph Nader. Frankly, this guy is rather scary. But helpful to conservatives like me in some ways. If it weren’t for his 90,000 votes in Florida, and if 600 of those had split in Gore’s favor, we’d have a very different country now.
While we are bringing up old Nader to ridicule. I nominate Unsafe At Any Speed, the book which made Ralph Nader and killed the Corvair - a car with some twitchy oversteer, but hardly “unsafe at any speed.”
Regarding the Corporate Socialism article, I still think he has some valid points. The only response I hear relating to his thesis is: thermalribbon
Capitalism without laws is gangsterism. I don’t think you have really thought this through. The whole of capitalism depends on laws to enforce contracts. Your pricing example is hardly descriptive of the complex relationship between capitalism and the rule of law. Capitalism depends on so many different laws, customs, rules.
For example, financial statements. If investors cannot rely on financial statements they cannot rely on the corporations which wish to raise capital by selling stock. Hence, “capitaism” suffers when everyone withdraws their “capital.”
I agree, corporations should be able to ask for preferential treatment. Politicians should reflexively reject the requests.
Yup… I think this is basically the same point Nader is trying to make in his “Corporate Socialism” article, only stated differently. Well-put, Beagle.
Trying to keep it on-topic if possible, but since someone brought it up, I rather liked Unsafe at Any Speed. Then again, I’m not a big fan of the modern automobile. I’ll take my bike over a gas-guzzler any day of the week. 
Just to correct my last post. The last two quotes should have been attributed to Sam Stone
Yes, it would have.
If we had a true free-market economy, we would not be subsidizing weak and uncompetetive corporations. Those unable to compete would fall; Those able to compete would expand. Aggressive upstarts would force their way into the market.
Unfortunatly, our various govermental bodies praise the free-market out of one side of their mouths, then pass out the corporate welfare and regulations out of the other.
Don’t know why I presume to judge someone’s thinking. Sorry, thermalribbon
Ralph Nader is looking out for Ralph Nader. He always has and will continue to do so. Check the direction of a majority of the headlines, then check Ralph’s position.
45/70, could you talk with the others in this thread critiquing Nader so that you folks could at least get your story straight…Is he a socialist-leaning ideologue or is he a changing-with-the-direction-of-the-wind populist?
And, who do you expect to find disagreement on this point from? Hell, Sam, who needs us liberals around here anymore if you are going to make our points for us! 
You’ve summarized the argument for trying to make government more accountable to the people and less a tool of the economically powerful better than I ever could! And, you’ve explained the reasons why it is necessary for government to regulate business in various ways…Business will not “do the right thing” if the right thing isn’t in their economic interest. Indeed, they have to in order to survive against other businesses.
And, the problems with this are what? Urban sprawl, for example, is subsidized in many direct and indirect ways now. The least we could do is make some attempt to level that playing field.
Well, let’s compare him to, say, Dick Cheney who is qualified to run the government because he enjoys making derogatory comments about it (“And the government had nothing to do with it.”) while his company is feeding from the government trough (and he was likely hired at least in part for his connections to government that would allow them to get in on it)?
I could scarcely name one person who has worked to make the government more accountable to the people than Ralph Nader and I could scarcely name anybody who has worked to make it less accountable than those at the top of the current administration!
You should really correct this statement to be for those of you who want to live in a world that is managed to maximize materialism, subsidize environmental degradation, … All because you buy into this whole ethos enough that you don’t find your liberties quite restricted by it, doesn’t mean there aren’t others who don’t.
As for Nader as a whole…I consider him a flawed individual who has some good insights and has done lots of good work. But he only looked so good in 2000 in comparison to the two goofs he was running against. I saw him on McNeil-Lehrer about 12 years ago arguing against Fred Wertheimer of Common Cause about a reform bill that raised Congressional salaries while restricting their ability to earn outside fees through speeches and the like. His knee-jerk reaction against this bill (“Congress should not be getting a pay raise while the average Joe is not”) seemed so incredibly simplistic—ignoring the larger issue of trying to free Congress from corrupting monetary influences—that it took me until this past election to take him seriously again.
The problem with that specific example is that it assumes prima facie that urban sprawl is a bad thing, or at least detrimental enough that it needs to be discouraged through taxation of some sort. Unless he’s going to offer a very specific definition of “urban sprawl,” and exactly what aspects of it he is trying to discourage, it’s exactly the kind of nebulous, overreaching thing that our existing government gets involved in. (Note that I don’t particularly disagree about overdevelopment and sprawl, but there it potential balance to be found, and I don’t think it lies in more wealth redistribution.)
What are your feelings on the criticisms I noted above in regards to the Green platform, jshore? I’m curious to hear what a Nader supporter thinks of them.
Ralph has made a very good living for himself by taking potshots at the establishment. He is generally alined with a fringe political group. This will guarantee him the media access he needs to remain solvent. It will also guarantee that he is never elected to a position where he actually has to impliment his thoughts. Wheather he is a socialist-leaning ideologue, or a change with the current wind populist is totally immaterial to someone who makes their living with their mouth. Lots of symbolism, very little substance.
Sam Stone
A guide to libertarians. May not be serious.
Not all libertarians are against all government. Some libertarians are for necessary taxation and even some government spending. I’m even for a safety net and public education, but I don’t have anything to do with the party.
I think the US Constitution is a libertarian document in that it tries to limit the federal government to enumerated powers. It has mostly worked in at least slowing down the explosion of regulation, bureaucracy, and creepy intrusion of the federal government. But the government still grows much faster than the economy.
Just to remind everyone of the topic: **Corporate Socialism
This is the part I really agreed with and posted above:
**
Can anyone disagree with this basic point?
What jshore said. I didn’t vote for Nader because I lived in a swing state. Nader was, IMO, wrong to deny any substantive difference between Democrats and Republicans. And I wish that Nader had used his influence, prior to the election, to make some kind of collaboration with the Democrats for the Greens, rather than go ahead with the run.
All of that said, I don’t think the OP was asking for a deep assessment of Nader’s character; nor is that necessary to discussing the multiple issues now on the virtual table.
pld, I don’t know where you live, but I used to a live in a city almost ruined by urban sprawl. Everyone hated the traffic and hated the sprawl. But there wasn’t enough cooperation between the city and the state to prevent it from spreading. And that’s partly because there’s no coherent national policy on the matter. jshore almost certainly knows more than I do about any environmental issue, but I want to make clear that greens aren’t against building housing or commercial real estate. The idea, as I understand it, is to build it in a smart, way: with strategically located high-density housing linked to public transportation options, not to mention simple things like underground or above-ground parking. The answer to urban sprawl is not arrested development but smart urban planning. It’s really just common sense. Land and the environment aren’t like other things. Once someone makes a large investment in construction it’s fairly permanent and people are stuck with the mess.
Yet nobody likes traffic. Nobody likes pollution. Nobody likes having to spend two hours getting to and from work. Although that is so fundamentally true, many, many people are forced to endure these conditions–and to watch them worsen–because their livelihood depends on their living somewhere where such problems have become endemic.
As to the Green platform, if time permits, I suppose I’d be willing to explain my support for most of that platform, but it strikes me that this is asking for a fairly unwieldy hijack. Let’s not forget the OP:
“[A]re capitalist ideals being displaced by corporations and mega-corporations? Do…small businesses in America have any chance at the “even playing field” capitalism promises? Are modern mega-corporations anti-capitalist? Are they anti-American? If you agree with Nader’s premises, then is there a way out of this ugly situation? If you disagree, why?”
Personally, I’d rather go with the OP than the green hijack, though if someone wants to start a new thread on the green party platform, I’d at least read it.
Also, assuming we do manage to return to the OP, I hope we’ve established that Nader’s personal character isn’t relevant to any of these issues (and I have no interest in discussing that), and that Nader is not a socialist–at least not in the sense of being opposed to a capitalist economy. You could call Nader a “social democrat” in the European sense, but why bother? The problem with tagging Nader as “socialist” is that the type of person who uses the term uses it pejoratively and, therefore, it shuts down their thinking. They know they’re arguing against “socialism” but they don’t know what they’re arguing for because they don’t even realize that “socialism” as they define it is government and government is something no modern democracy or industrial/post-industrial economy can do without. Hence you end up having people making arguments that “law and order” isn’t necessary. I say, it’s a beautiful morning, and let’s not go there.
Beagle, sorry I didn’t catch you in preview.