|reply to Karl Bode |
Re: Sinking to a New Low
I can tell you, as one who works in the political arena, both (all?) sides do this, as you put it, astroturfing.
I suspect your weltanschauung is tainting how you look at these "consumer advocacy" groups. After all, you said yourself that free market advocacy should be labeled stock holder/owner advocacy. As an economist, I can tell you that by and large, free markets do help consumers; how do you think America became the economic colossus that it is? But I guess the field of economics was invented by corporate hacks.
I wonder, you spent all this time to dig into the background of this website, but did you look at any of the data they offer? There are valid reasons to be against net neutrality legislation without considering the corporate bottom line.
Indeed, the effect of proposed legislation would just shift the supposed advantage from one set of corporations to another, why do you think Microsoft, Amazon.com, Apple, Disney, EBay,
and Yahoo!, among others, support it?
To quote Adam Thierer (but don't think too hard about it, since Cato receives corporate funding), "So, if its a debate between two large corporate interests, we can drop the ad hominem and just discuss which group of large corporations is trying to protect its property and its investments, and which group of large corporations is trying to win rents through the legislative and regulatory process."
And there's the rub. One of the main effects of regulation is advantage the politically connected. I often see people in these pages complaining about bought-off politicians this and that, why do you think that is?
The irony is, most (not all!) of the time, corporations love regulation because it knocks the small mom-and-pops out of competition (Walmart coming out for a minimum wage increase anyone?). To say real consumers don't support such and such is shaky at best given the woeful state of economics education in this country. If people actually knew how markets work, they wouldn't have to be afraid of them just like people in the dark ages were afraid and superstitious because they didn't know enough about science.
"It is a melancholy reflection that liberty should be equally exposed to danger whether the government have too much or too little power."James Madison
It's right, it's free.
quote:Again, anyone willing to label groups like this "consumer advocates" is drinking the Kool-Aid. Take the Heartland Institute for example. They argue smoking health concerns are "junk science" and thus the tobacco industry should not be regulated for the good of consumers. Reasonable? No. Consumer Advocacy? Hell no. They pose as "pro-smoker" while really working to keep government off of the tobacco industry. It's sleazy crap, not "consumer advocacy."
I suspect your weltanschauung is tainting how you look at these "consumer advocacy" groups.
quote:Perhaps. But these groups aren't just preaching for a free-market (already exists by and large), they're arguing for total deregulation and a largely impotent government regulatory authority, which, I don't care how you'd like to slice it, is not in the best interest of the consumer.
After all, you said yourself that free market advocacy should be labeled stock holder/owner advocacy. As an economist, I can tell you that by and large, free markets do help consumers