How's That Deregulation Working Out For You?

[Joanne98]

I've been thinking recently about deregulation, the great "free-market" panacea that has been so strongly touted in recent decades. You do remember how deregulation is always always said first and foremost to benefit the American public–more competition, more choice, cheaper prices, something along those lines is always uttered as hands wave about dismissively. Frankly, I still don't know why people pay any attention to economists; honestly, you give a Nobel prize in some discipline and everyone takes that to mean that the discipline is a science.

The interesting thing about deregulation has been the outcome: economic failure and business ruin for the corporations involved. Let's think back on, say, airline deregulation, telecomm deregulation, energy deregulation, and now financial deregulation. I can't say that I recall ever hearing about the business strength and economic stability of any of these markets after they were deregulated. Nor, by the way, has their service or cost for the average American improved.

Why do they keep doing it? I think the big corporations suffer from the same delusion that Republican voters suffer, that goes like this: "They're all suckers and someone's going to profit–it might as well be me." For one data point I return to my favorite statistic (the citation buried someplace in this blog) that, when asked whether they were in the top 1% of earners, 6% of people responded yes. They're winners! No whiney-liberal defeatism for them!

I suspect that every business in every market that buys a few congress-people to see some deregulation imagines that it is a winner and all their competitors are suckers. They're hoping that some deregulation will confer some business advantage that they can leverage. Be honest: if you were a major CEO would you urge congress to deregulate your industry if you really thought it would bring more competition and make profits harder for you to earn, especially when it affects your personal bottom line: your stock options?

But still it all has to be packaged up for consumption by the consumers, and so we get lots of lip-service about "market forces" and "supply and demand" and "free markets" and "competition" and "shakeouts" and etc. It bears repeating: none of these are "facts" from the "science" of economics, they're all different names for pyramid schemes created by big business and their Republican marionettes.

What's interesting is that the party of big business isn't all that good for business in the end, although it might be good for a few businesses (the winners!). And, despite the marketing aimed at the intellectually impaired of the electorate–not to mention the fear mongering to create the "conservative" moniker, but that's a different story–the "fiscal and financial conservatism" of Republicans aren't good for business or for the economy, and certainly they don't benefit the average American. Here's a comparison showing how the economy never does better when Republicans are in control.

There have been other, related thoughts. I've been wondering whether there was a realignment going on with political parties, so that Democrat-Liberal vs. Republican-Conservative might not be the operable dichotomy, but now I think maybe not. Instead, I think that the two parties still tend to divide the territory into Democrat-Populist vs Republican-Corporate areas. My hypothesis is that what has been changing is that the Republican story that they really are populist, just socially and fiscally conservative and the party of small government, is finally unraveling and revealing itself as mere a propaganda tool used to convince people to vote in the interests of big business and wealthy business owners. If Republicans were honest about which politicians they buy to serve the purposes of sucking wealth out of the public coffers and into the hands of the corporate elite and wealthy capitalists, it might be hard to get the votes.

We liberals are still inclined to think that the malfeasance and government-gutting of the current administration is somehow an aberration, or an accident, or a few bad apples. "How could they not notice how badly their policies are working?" the cry goes up. I keep saying the answer is simple: for Republican goals the current policies are working just fine, it's the goals that need to be seen to understand this.

Republicans, at least as they are currently constituted, are not working for the commonwealth so much as what we might call the commonwealthy, that group of the super-wealthy who control the bulk of the capital and the bulk of the Republicans in this country. Their economic and power situations have improved remarkably during this administration so, for them right now, the "fundamentals of the economy" are indeed strong. Couldn't be better! More money is flowing into their accounts, less is flowing out; it's unfortunate that a few businesses have to fail, but at least they got their share out before the meltdown.

I don't have a catchy summary or stirring conclusion. Too many deluded people still want to vote Republican even in the midst of financial crisis and wars of vanity. Is it an improvement that so many of the Republican voters seem more motivated this election by racism than by their naive belief in the "fiscal responsibility" of their Republican party?

http://bearcastle.com/blog/?p=1249

[Frances]

1. Are you saying that

Republicans privatize profits and socialize losses?

[norepubsin08]

2. this started with Reagan

that fucking, babbling piece of shit who was a puppet for big business. we all need to go over to his grave and protest, maybe crap on it while we are it!