Investment Theory of Politics

The investment theory of party competition in a nutshell by Thomas Ferguson, author of Golden Rule. His wikipedia article can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Ferguson_(academic)

And if you're interested in checking out his book, it can be found here:

http://www.amazon.com/Golden-Rule-Investment-Competition-Money-Driven/dp/0226...

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• Thomas Ferguson
• Investment Theory
• politics
• money
• UMASS
• Mr1001nights
• Chomskyan
• Buddhagem

[Irtidad]

Oh by the way, congrats on over 1000 subs!

[buddhagem]

Thanks! Might be time for a "Thank You" vid.

[DixyHair]

Awesome.

Also, have you heard of the concept of Rational Irrationality?

[buddhagem]

Rational irrationality? No, not out off hand. Send me a link.

[DixyHair]

I actually can't find a short article which adequately explains it, so I'd recommend checking out The Myth of the Rational Voter. Unfortunately, the author is a little bit of a vulgar libertarian, but the book still has lots of material worth reading for anybody except perhaps a hardcore statist.

Bryan Caplan has also authored the Anarchist Theory FAQ, which is a very long FAQ which can be found online. I thought it was pretty good, it covered all sides too.

[buddhagem]

Thanks for the info. I'll check it out.

[porkchopexpress07]

Great quick summary! Sounds like he knows his shit. Chomsky and Gore Vidal

have been saying this in some fashion since at least the 70's.

[Sepero1]

Good video and I agree with him very much. What this means is that we can have wealthy corporations OR politics, but not both, and I agree with that. Market Anarchists generally want wealthy corporations without poltics. So I presume that Syndicalists prefer to have politics without wealthy corporations.

[DesmondE]

This is also in a documentary called The Golden Rule. Mr. 1001 Nights produced the documentary I believe. He also has some extended interviews with Thomas Ferguson

[SCREECHINGJCWEASEL]

Fantastic!

[whoo689]

What Ralph Nader and others claim is simply not true. No corporation or industry can give millions except in the aggregate. One firm certainly cannot give 500 grand to a single candidate. I mean, in this day and age, it's not like you couldn't make 500 grand WITHOUT some huge corporate contribution anyhow.

[whoo689]

@whoo689 what happens is a lot of people in mid or higher-level positions in these corporations BUNDLE a whole bunch individual employee contributions. It could also be the case that in huge industries with thousands of firms, each firm maxed out the PAC contribution, and that adds up, totaling millions from single industries. But the vast majority of contributions come from individuals, esp. post-BCRA.

[whoo689]

Of course, I'm not gonna go out on a limb and claim without any evidence at the moment that contributions directly "buy" votes, as some claim, esp. regarding corporations. Corporations CANNOT give money directly to candidates, and it's been that way since 1907. The FEC surely would notice if that happened, as they are hardcore bureaucrats. Same w/ unions. PACs can only give 5 grand to candidates, and individuals only 2400. Big contributions from single donors are impossible.

[whoo689]

Isn't the investment theory pretty much self-explanatory and intuitive to anyone who doesn't actually have an extremely utopian view of democratic politics and think "everyone's vote matters", as we're always taught in school? I mean, of course groups like PACs and certain firms and such have more influence. They represent a lot more voters individually than just one vote by himself. This leads ideological politicians to ASSUME that each of these groups basically represent the issues.

[wungabunga]

Chomsky has referenced him in lectures.

[overmind25]

LOL Sepero! We don't want corporations lol.