much as i generally avoid sports analogies,

[unblock]

i recognize that they can be very popular and can cut through to many people past their political filters.

words like socialism, democratic socialism, regulation, etc., trigger knee-jerk negative reactions in many of the brainwashed masses.


but switch to sports and they're in a different world, where they're not so brainwashed.

would most sports make much sense, for long, without referees? we recognize and cheer for teams that win on the grounds that they demonstrated superior athletic ability and strategy, and we revile those who were found out to have cheated.

but we know human nature. already, football players do their best to try to get away with obvious infractions when they think the referees aren't looking. they'd very quickly ramp it up with fewer referees, weaker penalties, or no rules at all, the game would quickly turn into a random brawl. well, rome enjoyed its gladiators, but i think the appeal of basketball or football would decline dramatically in the absence of rules and reasonable enforcement of them.

do people love to hate referees? sure.
do referees get it wrong sometimes? sure.

but the games are undeniably better with referees, and only through proper enforcement of reasonable rules can we really say that one team is meaningfully better than the other.



so it is with capitalism. without rules and proper enforcement, the whole thing turns into a cruel joke.

the superior product doesn't necessarily win if the richer competitor can simply sell at a loss until competitors go out of business, then jack up the price when they have the market to themselves.

nor is the market a better place if two people can make a deal for limited profit for themselves, while they cause serious damage or take something away from a third party that wasn't even part of the deal (polution, e.g.).


we need referees enforcing reasonable rules to make capitalism work.


i think this analogy can reach people who are unreachable using the more traditional economic or political terms.

[ProfessorGAC]

1. I Like It

I think some people think we're overregulated because they heard someone say that one time. But, something like this might make them realize that "no rules" is a silly pipe dream.

[unblock]

2. the lack of numbers or perspective in our political discourse is also distressing.

i get that most people aren't numbers people, fine, but so many people have no way to even grasp the concept that there's a reasonable amount for certain things.

for many people, "taxes are too high" is a statement that's true everywhere, every time, period. to them, there's no such thing as a reasonable level. one day they'll say a 39.6% top tax bracket is "socialism" but a 36% rate is awesome capitalism; next election cycle if the top rate is 36%, then they'll say that's socialism and 33% is fair. it never ends because they have no perspective and no appreciation that there is a reasonable balance in there somewhere.

same for regulation. sure, it's possible to have too much, but our discourse doesn't allow is any way to evaluate whether we have too much or too little, because the discussion is framed in quasi-religious terms about regulation simply being evil or anti-free market.

how many people need to die from painful asbestos-related lung disease before people figure out that hey, maybe a little regulation might be a good idea....?

[ProfessorGAC]

7. You Said It!

I still find it laughable when i hear one of these math challenged buffoons promote a flat tax.

But, to them, numbers are too hard.

[unblock]

9. flat tax -- there's another fool's paradise

they go on and on about tax complexity, then, out of over 70,000 pages of tax code, regulations, and case law, they look at the one formula where you turn your taxable income into a tax liability, and they jump up and down about how much easier it is.

most people use software or pay someone else to do it anyway, so this doesn't help them anyway.

but most important, the complexity in taxes lies in determining what exactly your taxable income and valid deductions are in the first place. the formula at the end is a tiny, tiny part of the complexity.

but again, big businesses and rich people have an interest in fooling people, and would hugely benefit from a flat tax.


i especially love the tease that they'd do away with loopholes in exchange for a lower rate on the rich. yeah, that'll last a couple years if it were to happen at all. the rich know they'll always be able to get loopholes added back in....

[ProfessorGAC]

10. Loopholes

One of the enduring myths about the Ike era was the 90% tax bracket. Problem is, except for the occasional newbie to the high income world, and for a year at most (think Elvis, James Dean, Buddy Holly, et al) nobody actually paid the 90% rate.

There were so many loopholes that the high income earners were paying 90% on about 60% of their income.

That why when JFK lowered the top rate to 50%, but eliminated a couple of commonly used loopholes, there was not a revenue plunge.

If we simply would have eliminated that amount of revenue, the space race would have been a mere dream.

[Hoyt]

3. Our biggest issue with capitalism right now is how it's taxed and revenue used for society's good.

That's not to say we have just enough rules for large corporations, because there are many areas needing improvement.

But assuming we can't get the greed out, then let's raise taxes and use the revenue for society -- like healthcare, education, retirement, safety net, coming need for basic income, etc.

[unblock]

5. there are at least 3 areas of problem

1) big business not taxed enough
2) too little regulation (generally speaking; it's possible that certain regulations could be scaled back or modernized)
3) business involvement in politics

the whole healthcare thing really ticks me off. business has for decades been focusing on core competencies, outsourcing and divesting things they weren't real experts in. you would think they would be all over not having to deal with healthcare. let government deal with that and businesses wouldn't have to evaluate healthcare plans or deal with healthcare considerations in hiring, etc.

but big business feels they have a competitive advantage here because they have a bigger risk pool than smaller competitors, so they intervene in the politics of it all so keep the status quo. helps with employee retention as well, because they're beholden to their employer for healthcare.

it's sick, really, to use an ironic term....

[LiberalFighter]

13. I find it abhorent that businesses receiving tax abatements, tax cuts, ect.

Are given kudos for donating to worthwhile charities. How many of those charities would not be needed or less of if businesses were taxed properly? And of course, they paid their employees fairly?

The problem with businesses or owners giving to charities is that they determine where it goes. Sometimes not to the right places. It would be better if the community as a whole through the elected officials made that decision.

[FakeNoose]

4. I like this, and I'd like to add something

Great analogy Unblock!

But I would like to add that sports teams recognize that referees/umpires have earned their positions by hard work, study and experience that players and coaches don't have. That knowledge and experience needs to be respected and encouraged, not reviled.

The expertise of our career government employees (in many departments, agencies, and bureaus) has been kicked to the curb by Trump and his toadies. The reasons are obvious - they're trying to prevent him from destroying our government. It's not just in commerce and the market-place, it's in the State Dept., Dept. of Justice, Education, Environmental, Interior, and so on. These are the "referees" who have made our government run smoothly year after year, no matter who's in the Oval Office. But now a lot of them are gone.

Thanks for a good post. This all needs to be said.

[unblock]

6. exactly. not just expertise but also impartiality.

it doesn't do for the dallas cowboys to effectively pay officials for more favorable calls, or to reward them with a seat on their board after they retire from being an official, etc.

aside from that, referees don't hate the sport! they love the sport and want the best result, a fair contest to determine the best athletes.

right-wingers love to pretend that regulators hate companies or hate capitalism. not true at all! they just want fair competition so the best product can win and the economy can be the best it can be for all of us.

[FakeNoose]

8. Yes so true!

The RWNJs are doing Putin's work for him.

I'm reading Malcolm Nance's new book right now and he lays it all out so beautifully.
"The Plot to Destroy Democracy" by Malcolm Nance.

[ooky]

11. Try sometime asking a Trumptard what are the top 3 regulations they want to get rid of,

and then stand back and watch the eyes glass over.

[unblock]

12. The answer I'd get around here would be "all of them"

A lot of idiots seriously think businesses should be allowed to put lead in paint or toys. If it helps them make an extra fraction of a penny per share.

No room in their logic for the social cost of millions of kids with lowered iqs and increased violent tendencies....

[JHan]

14. i like your analogy.

Regulatory systems with accountability and checks and balances are really our best bet. And they must adapt to become increasingly robust to mitigate "externalities".

words like socialism, democratic socialism, regulation, etc., trigger knee-jerk negative reactions in many of the brainwashed masses.

I've realized that people rarely contextualize their wants within such classically defined worldviews. I call myself a liberal and some would think that means I support Capitalism when really all I want is civil rights and a state with a strong social safety net. Any system which looks at the individual as a measure of their economic productivity and no more is a system I'm not down with. I also recognize the inevitably of markets and I'm all for hybrid models which merge features that produce superior outcomes in terms of human development.

From what I've observed though, most people are agnostic on grand political and economic theories- they want a better life for themselves and their family and don't invest much into theorizing or thinking about grand social systems. This concerns me because it translates into an ignorance about how politics shapes their lives. For instance, "the economy" is touted as a hot topic, yet how deep of an understanding is there of the dynamics which propagate inequality if voters can't look beyond taxes to grasp the difference between supply-siders and demand-siders. What also compounds this is a love and admiration of wealth, based on the delusion that anyone can become filthy rich if they just try hard enough.

And how to reach out to Republicans... Republicans claim to hate regulation when actually they selectively regulate - they're okay with corporate hegemony and corporations going wild but they also want religion in schools and have capitulated to dominionists. Maybe some of them think religion compensates for cold market-based solutions , maybe a lil Jesus and Charity will fix the effects of rampant greed and unobstructed capitalist endeavor, so long as the "big bad Government" doesn't play "God" by taking taxes - which begs the question: why single out the Government when they're fine with Corporations playing God, without there being a strong system in place to prevent and address exploitation or breaking of rules? Something to put to them for sure.