What happened to the 4 hour work day predicted by Keynes?

Ichon

Ad Honorem
Mar 2013
3,654
#82
Do you advocate a system where there is no voice for financial and industrial interests beyond the votes possessed by individual financiers and industrialists?

BTW—I don’t think Putin et al can afford to « buy » Trump, and I fail to see how either Trump or Obama was « bought » by either banks or Russians.
Obviously, that will never happen. Whatever rules are made to limit money directly in elections will be circumvented though I do believe more restrictions will make the flow of money smaller and also less obvious what that money is buying to everyone. As it stands people in large degree have lost trust in the democratic system which is a huge problem. Majorities in almost every western nation no longer value democracy very highly due to the corruption and the fact they do not feel it represents their concerns.

As for the idea that moneyed interests get a 'special' voice in a democracy that is cause for concern but somewhat how the world works but that does not mean having clear rules to limit access does not improve the democratic process.

As for Putin and the Banks- I started the next comment "Realistically" to indicate that first comment was facetious but I guess it has to be more obvious.
 
Jan 2010
4,439
Atlanta, Georgia USA
#83
Depends on whether they support the public good. Unions, in general, do more good for society than harm.
So in other words, only those who agree with you should have the right to « petition the government for the redress of grievances? «. Steve Jobs thought the teachers’ unions should be abolished becauser they put the interests of teachers before that of students.
 
Aug 2014
4,669
Australia
#84
You don't eliminate the entire union movement because one has become militant. You reform that specific union. Wages in the United States has remained stagnant since it started to clamp down on unions in the 1970s. Collective bargaining is the only way for a worker to get a safe workplace and a fair share of a company's profits.
 

Ichon

Ad Honorem
Mar 2013
3,654
#85
So in other words, only those who agree with you should have the right to « petition the government for the redress of grievances? «. Steve Jobs thought the teachers’ unions should be abolished becauser they put the interests of teachers before that of students.
I think that is the point of the Citizens United decision where the U.S. Supreme Court basically equated spending money as being the equivalent of the speech as any restrictions on money would somehow limit the quantity of speech any given interest had access to. What that decision completely ignored was that .25% of the U.S. population provides over 90% of campaign financing. Exactly whose speech is being drowned out by money?
 
Jan 2010
4,439
Atlanta, Georgia USA
#86
I think that is the point of the Citizens United decision where the U.S. Supreme Court basically equated spending money as being the equivalent of the speech as any restrictions on money would somehow limit the quantity of speech any given interest had access to. What that decision completely ignored was that .25% of the U.S. population provides over 90% of campaign financing. Exactly whose speech is being drowned out by money?
I believe Citizens United was correctly decided. You say speech is being drowned out? I haven’t noticed any dearth of speech since that decision. can you give me an example?
 
Jan 2010
4,439
Atlanta, Georgia USA
#87
You don't eliminate the entire union movement because one has become militant. You reform that specific union. Wages in the United States has remained stagnant since it started to clamp down on unions in the 1970s. Collective bargaining is the only way for a worker to get a safe workplace and a fair share of a company's profits.
Never said I wanted to get rid of all unions. Unions in the private sector perform a necessary function, IMO. I was a union member for a while (UAW). My question about unions had to do with whether you would restrict their speech as well as that of industry, and you said no.
 

Ichon

Ad Honorem
Mar 2013
3,654
#88
I believe Citizens United was correctly decided. You say speech is being drowned out? I haven’t noticed any dearth of speech since that decision. can you give me an example?
The 99.75% of the population whose campaign donations constitute less than 10% of the total raised in election campaigns. Citizens United somehow concludes that restricted speech due to restricting money is not the other side of the same principle that unfettered money = unfettered speech and outbidding the speech of others effectively silences speech even more than restricting money spent on campaigns.

Even if the decision narrowly considered advertising money = speech it actually goes much further and allows unlimited funding so long as there is no coordination between the candidate and the money advocating for that candidate's election (most often by negative ads targetting a candidates opponent). The decision also allows money to buy 'access' to elected officials as lobbyists are allowed to work directly in the government office they previously lobbied and this is in addition to unrestricted and non-disclosed money accounting for almost 25% of all advertising in the most recent elections up from 3.6% in 2004-2006 election cycles where previously PACs were at least required to disclose funding and goals.
 
Jan 2010
4,439
Atlanta, Georgia USA
#89
The 99.75% of the population whose campaign donations constitute less than 10% of the total raised in election campaigns. Citizens United somehow concludes that restricted speech due to restricting money is not the other side of the same principle that unfettered money = unfettered speech and outbidding the speech of others effectively silences speech even more than restricting money spent on campaigns.

Even if the decision narrowly considered advertising money = speech it actually goes much further and allows unlimited funding so long as there is no coordination between the candidate and the money advocating for that candidate's election (most often by negative ads targetting a candidates opponent). The decision also allows money to buy 'access' to elected officials as lobbyists are allowed to work directly in the government office they previously lobbied and this is in addition to unrestricted and non-disclosed money accounting for almost 25% of all advertising in the most recent elections up from 3.6% in 2004-2006 election cycles where previously PACs were at least required to disclose funding and goals.
First, most of us (I include myself as I no longer make campaign contributions) have chosen not to participate financially. But if we wanted to, we could. And we can also share our opinions on social networks, letters to editor, and talking with friends. If yoy have a Facebook account, you see your news feed cluttered with the political opinions of your Facebook friends.

Second, your response did not answer the question: where is speech being restricted—other than on college campuses where students and professors are no longer allowed to say certain things?
 

Ichon

Ad Honorem
Mar 2013
3,654
#90
First, most of us (I include myself as I no longer make campaign contributions) have chosen not to participate financially. But if we wanted to, we could. And we can also share our opinions on social networks, letters to editor, and talking with friends. If yoy have a Facebook account, you see your news feed cluttered with the political opinions of your Facebook friends.

Second, your response did not answer the question: where is speech being restricted—other than on college campuses where students and professors are no longer allowed to say certain things?
The question was answered by showing the volume of money now flooding into election campaigns that does not disclose it sources, means, or goals and the cost of advertising is consequently rising as more money comes in. Basic limited supply vs rising demand during campaign season. This means candidates to be effective have to raise even more money... and where do they have to turn to get that money? Basically it makes small donation campaigns unworkable in almost all but a few national elections where a candidate goes 'viral' but is far from the regular means of running for and winning office.

Framing the question as what speech was restricted prior to the Citizens United decision is also an interesting question. The Court never stated speech was restricted but merely that it could theoretically be restricted if campaign finance laws were ever extended so acted pre-emptively to equate free speech with the ability to spend money. Granted the Constitution is a document made to protect the wealthy classes but the Court isn't normally showing that so explicitly because it makes people without wealth question the fairness of the system even more than they already do.

Students and Professors can say whatever they want on campus and then have to choose how to deal with the repercussions from fellow students and faculty. The government is not imposing limits on speech on campus. Not sure what that has to do with Supreme Court decisions on campaign finance reform and the validity of the U.S. electoral system.