Google's CEO: 'The Laws Are Written by Lobbyists'
But are the voters any better?
The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies is a 2007 book written by Bryan Caplan challenging the notion that voters are reasonable people that society can trust to make laws. Rather, Caplan contends that voters are irrational in the political sphere and have systematically biased ideas concerning economics. ...
The book is notable in use of irrationality, a rare assumption in economics. Yet the work is also a challenge to conventional public choice, where voters are seen as rationally ignorant. Conventional public choice either emphasizes the efficiency of democracy (as in the case of Donald Wittman) or, more commonly, democratic failure due to the interaction between self-interested politicians or bureaucrats, well-organized, rent-seeking minority interests and a largely indifferent general public (as in the work of Gordon Tullock, James M. Buchanan, and many others). Caplan, however, emphasizes that democratic failure does exist and places the blame for it squarely on the general public. He makes special emphasis that politicians are often caught between a rock and a hard place: thanks to advisors, they know what policies would be generally beneficial, but they also know that those policies are not what people want. Thus they are balancing good economic policy (so they don’t get voted out of office due to slow growth) and bad economic policy (so they don’t get voted out of office due to unpopular policies).
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/The_Myth_of_t...
Switzerland is far more democratic than the US and the people are much more in control of their government. Proportional representation, no one person in charge as president and referendums on most significants actions of the legislature make for a much more decentralized system. Its very difficult for a vast industry special interests to insert itself into the process.
The key is not letting people decide everything for everybody, but preserving the individual's ability to decide their own fate.
The developing "democratic" disaster in the US is not what the founders wanted. They thought they had put things in place to prevent this, but they failed. And its looking like only a major crisis that our leaders cannot cover over will force us to reconsider how we operate.
This drove me to just now sign up at:
Their tagline is 'making your interests special interests.' Their investors include Founders Fund, Conway, Dixon, McClure, Rabois, etc. And they are pretty clear that what they're pursuing is an 'unmatched opportunity to change representative democracy' (i.e. aiming high).
Financial lobbying should be outlawed. It's very equivalent to the ability to buying votes and we know that buying power is very unequally spread across the country. I find it shocking that anyone would doubt that. BTW, financial lobbying is outlawed in most other democracies.
What I find more interesting is Schmidt's new interpretation of the Google motto "Don't be evil":
"The end of the interview turned to the future of technology. When Bennet asked about the possibility of a Google "implant," Schmidt invoked what the company calls the "creepy line."
"Google policy is to get right up to the creepy line and not cross it," he said. Google implants, he added, probably crosses that line.
At the same time, Schmidt envisions a future where we embrace a larger role for machines and technology. "With your permission you give us more information about you, about your friends, and we can improve the quality of our searches," he said. "We don't need you to type at all. We know where you are. We know where you've been. We can more or less now what you're thinking about."
"America's research universities are the envy on the world," he said. "We have 90 percent of the top researchers in the world. We also have a bizarre policy to train people and then kick them out by not giving them visas, which makes no sense at all."
I think he has a very good point there. Even more so for graduate students. If they've been here for 4+ years, and are skilled it should be very easy for them to get permanent residency.
I wonder who still believe they live in a democracy (i.e. people rule). Modern democracies are supposed to represent 'the people', yet in practice people only get to vote once in ~4 years and large businesses (using lobby) can use their money to pressure every day.
Every political science prof will say lobbies are more powerful then votes. so why still call it a democracy? What would be a cover-up lie then isn't it?
I think businesses should not run coutnries because they are not creative -- they simply and soley try to maximize profit. People can make a nation friendly, homey and caring; business cannot.
The reason China will outperform the west is because it's not a democracy.
In a democracy, politicians rent the country. In China, the leaders own it.
People care more about their property if they have a long term interest in it.
"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
First time Iv'e heard the term 'creepy line' from Google:
"The end of the interview turned to the future of technology. When Bennet asked about the possibility of a Google "implant," Schmidt invoked what the company calls the "creepy line."
"Google policy is to get right up to the creepy line and not cross it," he said. Google implants, he added, probably crosses that line."
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury."
You only have to look and see what is happening to see that it is true.
...and one key body of lobbied law is called the Code of Federal Regulations or CFR. It is an Executive Branch body of law, "judicially noticed" and therefore unquestionable as to its legitimacy. Regulations are drafted by bureaucrats in federal agencies, published as draft in the Federal Register, and eventually accepted into law. Once published in the CFR, it is law. A few of the Executive Branch agencies include DEA, FTC, FCC, and DOT. Check it out.
The U.S. can maintain its dominant economic position indefinitely if we reform immigration to hoard the brightest minds and stick to the entrepreneurial model. If we agree to never hinder startup business creation cross-party, the China large-company model of government will not be able to adapt\innovate as quickly in the future once it's done catching up to what others have already done.
I find it amazing that Schmidt is highlighting the obvious flaws that are built into the political system by lobbying - which are pretty obvious to most people .. and is complaining that it's difficult to change the political system because of it, when Google is a major player in the lobbying game, a major player which is most probably in the game to win itself.
He mentions that incentives drive politics - which is true, but surely lobbying is just the visible vehicle of incentives driving politics? If he views incentives as a fact of life .. why is lobbying not accepted with a similar amount of cynical reasoning?
Maybe Google is trying to work out how they can affect politics in a more effective way, as something other than a lobbyist?
He talks about America's strengths in education, but that graduates (useful to Google) aren't able to be granted visas automatically.
He highlights how China's success is based around its shrewd use of business strategy and technology. He talks about how China has a top-down approach to orchestrating change, but he doesn't mention how censorship and control of information also features heavily in Chinese politics. Also, if his metaphor is extended .. what role do the citizens of a country run as a business have?
As a comparison, he also indicates how he feels that Google's omnipresence (power) is set to grow in the future, regardless. He also talks about the power that technology has as a disrupter, a couple of times. On one level, I think he's highlighting Google's clout.
The thrust of the conversation seems to be based around the concept of a what a tech company (e.g. 'Google') could offer a government, in terms of business strategy and enabling change through technology.
I'm not a Luddite, but on a couple of levels the interview worries me. He's professing that technology is good because it reduces what the human mind needs to be capable of - while at the same time, the technology that Google amasses is going to grow far more capable. All the while, he's insinuating that Google's in a unique position to shape the political landscape.
When it comes down to it, I don't trust his reasoning and I don't totally understand his incentives.
Schmidt compares China to a business but then shies away and says he doesn't mean it literally. This analogy/truth is far more important than he admits. Anyone interested might enjoy:
http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/08/rotary-... (what a corporation would be like if run like the U.S. government)
http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/08/landsca... (follow-up)
Spengler asserts that democracy is simply the political weapon of money, and the media is the means through which money operates a democratic political system. The thorough penetration of money's power throughout a society is yet another marker of the shift from Culture to Civilization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_West#Democracy.2...
I think that children at school should be given some money and learn to manage their education and hire their teachers, that should be a unique experience. They would learn to govern themselves and the value of honesty. That would be a great revolution.
The more you are able to control your surroundings the more you realize that your action is a crucial factor in your life. Errors are one way to learn, that is the lesson to remember.
I think most people actually do know how influential lobbyists are, as evidenced by candidates' perpetual battle to portray themselves as more resistant to special interests than their opponents.
But the mobile phone comment is even more indicative of how out of touch the guy is. We don't need to record Congress with mobile phones: we've had C-SPAN for years. In fact, you can get videos from it online from a number of sources.
Is not who wrote the law, but in which conditions laws should be applicable. United Nations and poor countries, you can write the law but poor countries will continue to be poor because they don't have the power to impose their reality. If you don't have power you are invisible.
Google has power, so he question who wrote the laws and he knows that power is a way to rewrite the law.
undefined
"Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite." --John Kenneth Galbraith
The full interview is worth watching -- pretty interesting.
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid30183073001?...
By adding in a typo like 'now what you are thinking about', the author of the article can also be pretty sure what we're thinking about .. sloppy journalism.
In democracy only 20% people will vote as per their conscience.
Wow, non half-assed comments from Eric Schmidt.
One thing that is missing from this discussion is the difference between the situation we find ourselves in and our country as designed. The US was designed to be a federation of states, in fact, it was created as a confederation. The constitutional congress did create a central federal government, but it created one with a strict limit on its powers in the enumerated powers clause, and was only passed with an additional 10 amendments, all of which explicitly removes powers from the federal government that it wasn't granted in the body of the document, but that the holdouts wanted to make absolutely sure where held for the states and the individuals.
In the time since the writing of the constitution, the federal government has grown in power, and now is in complete violation of the constitution. %99 of the activities, or more, are illegal under the constitution.
This is the massive centralization of power that the founders attempted to avoid.
Talking about lobbyists having too much power is like talking about the fleas on the dog that is menacing you. It is the dog that is the problem. IF the power were not illegally centralized in washington DC the lobbyists (and the politicians) would not have the inordinate power they have.
Decentralization- that is, state level power- is more democratic because state representatives are more attentive and easier to reach by voters. AT the state level, an individual vote has much more impact.
Eric sounds like a Hari Seldon[1] trying not to disclose too much.
Yes, Google doesn't want to cross the "creepy line".
But at the same time...
"We don't need you to type at all. We know where you are. We know where you've been. We can more or less now what you're thinking about."
The US system is closely based on the "democracy" as practiced in the city-state Athens. The following quote is from Lords of the Sea: The epic story of the Athenian navy and the birth of democracy; p.95
----------------
The oar and rowing pad of the common citizen of Athens might seem less poetical and glorious than the hoplite's shield and spear, but all the world now knew that the city's power rested on swift triremes and strong crews.
Abroad, the Athenian commoner ruled the seas. At home, he was still a second-class citizen. The law allowed to him a vote in the Assembly, but he was barred from holding public office.
The pressure of his daily work often kept him away from Assembly meetings. Athens was in fact less a democracy than a commonwealth governed by the richest citizens.
All archons and generals came from the ranks of the wealthy, and the bar of property qualification was set so high that even the ten thousand hoplites were excluded. The common citizen could do no more than choose his leaders: leadership itself was denied him.
-----------------
I believe the state of the average voter has not changed since then. And the system is eternal; human life finite. It is a waste of time to try to change the system.
undefined