Reddit reviews Golden Rule: The Investment Theory of Party Competition and the Logic of Money-Driven Political Systems (American Politics and Political Economy Series)
We found 15 Reddit comments about Golden Rule: The Investment Theory of Party Competition and the Logic of Money-Driven Political Systems (American Politics and Political Economy Series). Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
University of Chicago Press
> Rich people aren't being represented obviously!
This book, outlined in this article and summarized in this video says otherwise. It is an inevitability of liberal democracy.
^^I'm ^^agreeing ^^with ^^you, ^^btw.
I'd like to suggest Thomas Ferguson's "Golden Rule."
Do you libs still believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus too?
The US was never Democratic. This is why liberalism is not a real, serious ideology. More like propaganda, mythology, fairy tales to shape how the sheeple feel about and relate to their political overlords. A sheeple control mechanism.
And liberal myths about progressive heroes like Lincoln, FDR, JFK, etc, are nothing more than mythology and hagiography, fulfilling much the same role as, e.g. myths about old Teutonic heroes like Armenius were intended to fill in Nazi Germany.
If anyone wants to understand this academically try reading Thomas Ferguson's Golden Rule : The Investment Theory of Party Politics, but it is an academic read that might be difficult to parse for those not trained in political science methodology. You can view a documentary regarding the book here.
I thought the documentary was great but it's very long and I think a lot of people don't catch the details. I also thought it was good to revive the video since I think it's informative and more people should check it out. This particular excerpt seemed relevant to social democracy.
The rest of the documentary is largely focused on Thomas Ferguson's book Golden Rule: The Investment Theory of Party Competition and the Logic of Money-Driven Political Systems and features quotes from Ferguson and Noam Chomsky quite heavily. Ferguson believes that you can predict government policy by following the financial backing of the various politicians. For example, it is argued that health care entered the US national debate in 2008 not necessarily because people wanted it but because various manufacturing industries were seeing their costs of labor go up and were feeling the pinch during the financial crisis and they in turn lobbied the politicians. At the end the documentary tries to make the case for both socialism and democracy.
> where was single-payer? Why start from a position of compromise??
Incorrect narrative number one that liberals are trapped in (although the cons are really guilty of this as well - so this really is something akin to a society-wide control mechanism. It's our version of the propaganda medieval peasants got fed, when their clergy would tell them that there is this god, and he picked their king to be their sovereign lord, and that's why they have to obey him and his feudal lieu-tenants) is that we're a democracy. That the outputs of the political system are determined by their representatives fighting/arguing/negotiating with the representatives selected by their conservative enemies.
This is the reason why liberals blamed the outcome of the health care reform effort on Tea Partiers going crazy and holding rallies, on Republican congressmen being jerks and playing the role of obstructionists.
Now, consider the thesis of this book.
What alternative narrative does that suggest?
Well, look at the role that the health insurance industry plays in our system. In our system, people generally do not purchase health care directly. They obtain health insurance coverage through work, and when they need to go see a doctor or to the hospital, their health insurance company covers most of the cost.
So, in our system, health insurance companies serve to insulate the consumer from health care prices. How would you react if you went to your supermarket, and instead of the $0.50 rolls of toilet paper you normally buy, your supermarket had replaced their entire stock with $10.00 eco-friendly hyper-absorbent nano-tech super premium rolls? You'd go "hey wtf, bring the old stuff back, I'm not paying $10 for a roll of toilet paper, no matter how fancy it is or how many patents these jerkoffs hold. Lemme talk to the manager!"
In healthcare this doesn't happen because we're insulated from price increases by health insurance companies. So it's a frog in a boiling pot scenario. Prices creep up overall stealthily, but consumers don't immediately see the price hikes and don't really know what they can do about it.
This is why Health insurance is actually not a very profitable industry. It's number 35 on this list. People think they must be raking it in because they're playing all sorts of nasty tricks like denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, and such, but what's going on is that for-profit health care producers like Big Pharma (#3 on the list) are jacking up prices, and health insurance companies are going crazy trying to figure out a way to pass on those price hikes to their consumers.
So, an alternative narrative for what happened during the health care reform effort is this: Health insurance had a problem. They were seeing their costs going up due to Big Pharma jacking up prices, but they couldn't easily pass on those price hikes to consumers without creating a gigantic PR nightmare for themselves. So they "invested" money in the political system and bought themselves some representatives, and these guys proceeded to mediate between the two industries (health insurance and for-profit healthcare producers) conflicting interests, and proceeded to come up with a deal that satisfied both. Mainly by transferring a bit more wealth from the middle/working class to the two industries.
And this explains why ObamaCo & the Democrats' negotiating behavior was completely inexplicable. Everyone knows that if you are going to haggle, you don't open the bidding with the price you're hoping to pay. You offer the best possible price for yourself - in the same way if the health reform effort had been on the level, you don't open negotiations with "moderate/feeble public option", you start of with full blown Cuban-style Commie care and when the Republicans recover from their fainting spell you bargain down to "Single Payer" or maybe "Robust Public Option." Now, do Barack Obama, Rahm Emanuel, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid look like total idiots and noobs to you? Of course not, with the exception of Obama (who in any case has plenty of expert advise) they're all very experienced insiders and long serving politicians. What really happened is that the real action was in back room deals with representatives of the industries, and this public row with Tea Partiers and Boehner stomping his feet and screaming "HELL NO YOU CAIN'T!" was basically a charade to fool you liberals and tea partiers both, to keep the divide-and-rule going, to make lib peasants blame the con peasants for the outcome and vice-versa, instead of blaming the real problem, their own leaders selling them out.
And this is the sort of thing I mean liberals too are prone to mistakes at the narrative, paradigm level. I've told this story many many times, and it's simply impossible to get Obama fanboyz and fangulz to accept that the real problem was that Obama sold them out and threw them under the bus, instead of the evil Teabaggers.
Golden Rule: The Investment Theory of Party Competition and the Logic of Money-Driven Political Systems SPOILER
If there is anyone who wants to read this and legitimately can't afford it.... reply to this... and I'm sure we can find a way.
The Golden Rule Documentary feat Noam Chomsky
Can you add some info about the book(official title, author) for those just arriving to the party? I was searching Amazon... but I don't know the author and there are a few "The Golden Rule".
jesus christ, your comment is the definition of self projection
You say the other commenter "does not understand history," yet you spout the ideological morality play created by the left of the state vs big business when serious historians acknowledge that the progressive movement was funded by big business to cartelize industry.
Common sense would dictate that corporations would benefit from oil subsidies and taxpayer, instead of user fee, funded highways.
No comment on my educational background.
But can we assume that you're highly accomplished educationally? Perhaps with bachelors and graduate degrees from elite institutions like Ivy league schools or similar?
If so, do you understand why radical Leftists, like Communists and Anarchists, hate and despise the intelligentsia?
And if your schooling has consisted of conventional or mainstream history/political education only, then I'm afraid that perhaps there may be some gaps or flaws in your education. I recommend the following 2 books to remedy those gaps:
I humbly suggest you read Winner Take All Politics, or if you're a voracious reader: Golden Rule: The Investment Theory of Party Competition and the Logic of Money-Driven Political Systems. These will free you of some fetters.
Definitely get Tom Ferguson's book then. Sadly, I haven't found a pdf of it online but your library or Amazon should have it. He has a number of articles that should be interesting. In short, he explores how the opportunity cost of voting causes political systems to be dominated by moneyed interests. As labor organizes, it becomes a moneyed interest and is able to get into the political system, which affects the composition of the parties. I should be able to snag his scholarly articles if you can't get them through your university or wherever. He spends some time talking about Europe too, so you should be able to get some useful info for making comparisons.
I'm afraid I don't have much on China, probably because unions are illegal and thus quite small and powerless.
Note that there is this vast MSM apparatus pushing an alternative narrative? A different description of what is going on? One that fits much better with your mental image of how the world works?
That's right. That is why it is there. It is there precisely to induce that false narrative, theories of how the political system works.
It is indeed true that folks who do not adhere to "mainstream" ideas of how the political system works might be... insane, and wrong. But it is virtually certain that those who do adhere to the mainstream view are... brainwashed cretins.
Because political systems never work the way the internal propaganda tells the sheeple it works.
Books? Here ya go.
Speaking of political science, I'd like to recommend a couple of books to my liberal friends here:
That should drive a stake through the heart of the fraudulent scam and marketing/propaganda lie that is modern American liberalism.
And liberalism doesn't work. Never did.