<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Democracy Should Rule Economy:  Fine Michael Sandel Essay</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?feed=rss2&#038;p=5958" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5958</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Sep 2010 17:59:50 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: MaskedMarauder</title>
		<link>http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5958&#038;cpage=1#comment-396287</link>
		<dc:creator>MaskedMarauder</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2010 21:49:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5958#comment-396287</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m not sure I understand or agree with where Sandel is going here.  The problem isn&#039;t the bigness of business, its the distribution of power in society that matters.  

The persistent claim by private business that they ought by right to be exempt from public control sequesters a great deal of power away from the public.  This is an inherently anti-democratic position (where &quot;democratic&quot; is understood to be the sharing of civil power among the most citizens) that deprives society of the ability to govern itself.  As such, it is neither a progressive (aka liberal) or a conservative issue &lt;i&gt;per se&lt;/i&gt;.

I think the change from the pre-war &quot;anti-bigness liberalism&quot; to the post-war&quot;social-welfare liberalism&quot; is less dramatic than this excerpt implies.  The first phase was in reaction to the old monopolies and, by 1944, those were pretty much dead.  FDR established the TNEC (aka Monopoly Committee) in 1938, but it came back with no usable recommendations, mainly because monopolies were no longer much of a problem.

On the other hand, following from WWII, it was apparent that economic insecurity was one of the principle enablers of the dictators who started that war.  So the social-welfare programs were in part a practical protection against the politically destabilizing and dangerous conditions that economic inequality engenders, but the rationale behind those reforms remained the same.  

FDR invoked Lord Henley&#039;s observation that necessitous men are not free men WRT the &quot;Second Bill of Rights&quot; (&#039;36 and/or &#039;44).  

His call for the Monopoly Committee in 1938 had the lesser quoted argument: &quot;The power of a few to manage the economic life of the Nation must be diffused among the many or be transferred to the public and its democratically responsible government.  If prices are to be managed and administered, if the Nation&#039;s business is to be allotted by plan and not by competition, that power should not be vested in any private group.&quot;

Same principle, different problems.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m not sure I understand or agree with where Sandel is going here.  The problem isn&#8217;t the bigness of business, its the distribution of power in society that matters.  </p>
<p>The persistent claim by private business that they ought by right to be exempt from public control sequesters a great deal of power away from the public.  This is an inherently anti-democratic position (where &#8220;democratic&#8221; is understood to be the sharing of civil power among the most citizens) that deprives society of the ability to govern itself.  As such, it is neither a progressive (aka liberal) or a conservative issue <i>per se</i>.</p>
<p>I think the change from the pre-war &#8220;anti-bigness liberalism&#8221; to the post-war&#8221;social-welfare liberalism&#8221; is less dramatic than this excerpt implies.  The first phase was in reaction to the old monopolies and, by 1944, those were pretty much dead.  FDR established the TNEC (aka Monopoly Committee) in 1938, but it came back with no usable recommendations, mainly because monopolies were no longer much of a problem.</p>
<p>On the other hand, following from WWII, it was apparent that economic insecurity was one of the principle enablers of the dictators who started that war.  So the social-welfare programs were in part a practical protection against the politically destabilizing and dangerous conditions that economic inequality engenders, but the rationale behind those reforms remained the same.  </p>
<p>FDR invoked Lord Henley&#8217;s observation that necessitous men are not free men WRT the &#8220;Second Bill of Rights&#8221; (&#8217;36 and/or &#8217;44).  </p>
<p>His call for the Monopoly Committee in 1938 had the lesser quoted argument: &#8220;The power of a few to manage the economic life of the Nation must be diffused among the many or be transferred to the public and its democratically responsible government.  If prices are to be managed and administered, if the Nation&#8217;s business is to be allotted by plan and not by competition, that power should not be vested in any private group.&#8221;</p>
<p>Same principle, different problems.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David R</title>
		<link>http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5958&#038;cpage=1#comment-394650</link>
		<dc:creator>David R</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Mar 2010 00:35:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5958#comment-394650</guid>
		<description>The financiers have  said for centuries, We do not care who who controls the politics, just so we control the money&quot; So now they have the whole t «  


&quot;Obama Must Assert Democratic Control Over Economic Forces&quot;

Do tell ! Maybe Sandel and Andy can join forces and join the Pres and show how to do this.  Interesting !

And too, apparently someone is assuming that is what the Pres wans to do ?!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The financiers have  said for centuries, We do not care who who controls the politics, just so we control the money&#8221; So now they have the whole t «  </p>
<p>&#8220;Obama Must Assert Democratic Control Over Economic Forces&#8221;</p>
<p>Do tell ! Maybe Sandel and Andy can join forces and join the Pres and show how to do this.  Interesting !</p>
<p>And too, apparently someone is assuming that is what the Pres wans to do ?!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim Z.</title>
		<link>http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5958&#038;cpage=1#comment-394633</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim Z.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Mar 2010 23:07:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nonesoblind.org/blog/?p=5958#comment-394633</guid>
		<description>Sandel has long been an acute observer of the ground between economics on the one hand, and politics, law and society on the other.

&quot;...the first question of politics was how to subject economic power to democratic control&quot; is a statement that I completely agree with, and one that I often propose to students in my econ. classes.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sandel has long been an acute observer of the ground between economics on the one hand, and politics, law and society on the other.</p>
<p>&#8220;&#8230;the first question of politics was how to subject economic power to democratic control&#8221; is a statement that I completely agree with, and one that I often propose to students in my econ. classes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
