tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post469337127268207954..comments2023-10-31T03:18:26.963-07:00Comments on Great Guys Weblog: How Lobbying WorksBrethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15063508651955739056noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-10881862609098724862010-06-13T10:38:43.212-07:002010-06-13T10:38:43.212-07:00Actually, they did. They accomplished some of the ...Actually, they did. They accomplished some of the most dramatic engineering feats of their time.<br /><br />Consider the Eddystone Light.Harry Eagarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04196202758858876402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-35216555637031626452010-06-12T13:32:28.648-07:002010-06-12T13:32:28.648-07:00Didn't make much progress either.Didn't make much progress either.erphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826044412670324694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-18638746860700055782010-06-12T12:22:45.230-07:002010-06-12T12:22:45.230-07:00It was a cash in, cash out operation.
They had a ...It was a cash in, cash out operation.<br /><br />They had a long list of places needing lights, but it took them centuries to get around to some of them.<br /><br />If a storm washed away a lighthouse, which happened often, it would be replaced catch as catch can.<br /><br />They did what they had money to do, didn't borrow.Harry Eagarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04196202758858876402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-14224251461467365972010-06-11T11:56:28.811-07:002010-06-11T11:56:28.811-07:00So how did they handle unforeseen expenses, say da...So how did they handle unforeseen expenses, say damage repair from the fire?erphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826044412670324694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-63409728038479167672010-06-11T10:57:05.436-07:002010-06-11T10:57:05.436-07:00'Didn't they have reserves for emergencies...'Didn't they have reserves for emergencies, maintenance, expansion ...'<br /><br />Nope.Harry Eagarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04196202758858876402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-26195484716530671772010-06-09T11:31:06.176-07:002010-06-09T11:31:06.176-07:00Harry, break even? That's a cute trick. Didn...Harry, break even? That's a cute trick. Didn't they have reserves for emergencies, maintenance, expansion ...<br /><br />You should hear my roommate the CPA wax eloquent on this subject. It's one of his favorites.erphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826044412670324694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-16488962423748097492010-06-09T10:47:58.971-07:002010-06-09T10:47:58.971-07:00They just had to cover expenses, there was no requ...They just had to cover expenses, there was no requirement for any overage.<br /><br />I recommend a review of the history of the Trinity House, which never made a profit for the first few hundred years, was always short of funds; later, it accidentally became very profitable.<br /><br />This was a problem, since it had been set up to break even. Nobody knew what to do with the excess money. <br /><br />The story is told in "The World's Lighthouses, from Ancient Times to 1820," by David Stevenson, which is about more than lighthouses.Harry Eagarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04196202758858876402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-57045565632463443362010-06-09T09:26:16.224-07:002010-06-09T09:26:16.224-07:00Harry said: Corporations were originally schools,...Harry said: <i>Corporations were originally schools, municipalities, charities.</i> That may be, but they better all have made a profit or they'd cease to exist pronto. "Not for Profit" doesn't mean run a deficit.erphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826044412670324694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-59340584117558431782010-06-09T08:29:59.763-07:002010-06-09T08:29:59.763-07:00I apologize for the slow moderation of these last ...I apologize for the slow moderation of these last few comments. In order to reduce spam, after a post was 10 days old, it automatically held comments in a moderation bin and I didn't notice the comments for a few days.<br /><br />I've changed the setting to 20 days of non-moderation and I also promise to do a better job watching the moderation bin.Brethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15063508651955739056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-41548729653544342282010-06-04T22:42:04.864-07:002010-06-04T22:42:04.864-07:00Nothing, so far as I can see.
Well, except for th...<i>Nothing, so far as I can see.</i><br /><br />Well, except for the part of the constitution that says "Congress shall pass no law ..."<br /><br />Now, there may well be a compelling argument that corporate speech is a bad thing. IMHO, whatever argument there is runs straight onto the rocks when it comes to defining what a corporation is so that the Maui News remains untouched.<br /><br />Never mind that, I'll grant the argument as stipulated.<br /><br />Then introduce an amendment to the Constitution that says what laws Congress can pass.<br /><br />Until then, "no" means no, regardless of how badly tortured "is" is.Hey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-82797851293401343052010-06-04T18:05:38.475-07:002010-06-04T18:05:38.475-07:00Nothing, so far as I can see.
One would think tha...<i>Nothing, so far as I can see.</i><br /><br />One would think that "Congress shall make no law ..." indicative of something.<br /><br />I expect there is a reasonable argument to be made that corporations do not have free speech rights, and that the US would be better off if such was the case. (I also think that argument sinks like a greased safe the moment it is inspected by even a sidelong glance.)<br /><br />Even granting that argument in toto, though, the definition of "no" seems even more clear cut than "is".<br /><br />So, the answer is to pass an amendment to the constitution, not wishing away the clear meaning of the words therein.Hey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-21914834049293037662010-06-04T10:38:44.701-07:002010-06-04T10:38:44.701-07:00I didn't say it was. I said it wasn't part...I didn't say it was. I said it wasn't part of the original concept of the corporation.<br /><br />Corporations were originally schools, municipalities, charities.Harry Eagarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04196202758858876402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-46520833191923450072010-06-03T11:26:30.343-07:002010-06-03T11:26:30.343-07:00Harry, why do you think making a profit is such a ...Harry, why do you think making a profit is such a bad thing?erphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826044412670324694noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-86482383202205230452010-06-03T10:19:50.378-07:002010-06-03T10:19:50.378-07:00Nothing, so far as I can see.
While I am not an e...Nothing, so far as I can see.<br /><br />While I am not an expert in the history of the legal concept of the corporation, I know something about it. There is a great divide between corporations as they were conceived in 1787 and as they are now, following the innovative Delaware legislation of around 1880.<br /><br />Corporations were not thought of as profit-making institutions but as civic bodies, like Trinity House, which was responsible for erecting lighthouses around Britain. As it happened, with the explosion of trade in the mid-18th c., Trinity House became very profitable, but that was never the intent. <br /><br />I followed the comments and posts at Volokh about all this, and if any of those experts understands the fundamental change in the concept of 'corporation,' it didn't come through.Harry Eagarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04196202758858876402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-22227270917808434142010-06-02T18:41:47.313-07:002010-06-02T18:41:47.313-07:00It is obvious to me that the Constitution did not ...<i>It is obvious to me that the Constitution did not give corporations the right to vote, so the recent Supreme Court decision was clearly erroneous.</i><br /><br /><i>I also think it's ludicrous to define corporations as persons with the same free speech rights as individuals.</i><br /><br />What does the First Amendment have to say about this?Hey Skipperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10798930502187234974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-77453238085562708642010-06-01T10:18:50.076-07:002010-06-01T10:18:50.076-07:00It is obvious to me that the Constitution did not ...It is obvious to me that the Constitution did not give corporations the right to vote, so the recent Supreme Court decision was clearly erroneous.<br /><br />It is amusing. The court managed to get on both wrong sides of the issue by also upholding McCain-Feingold.<br /><br />Not mentioned so far is one other 'solution': public financing of campaigns. I don't support it, but if you want to cut out the plutocrats, that should do it.Harry Eagarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04196202758858876402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-85789931272994325252010-05-25T15:54:17.286-07:002010-05-25T15:54:17.286-07:00The blind trust concept is interesting. Who would...The blind trust concept is interesting. Who would administer the blind trust? Congress? The President? Some government bureaucracy created by Congress?<br /><br />It'd be tricky to make the trust truly "blind", but if it could be done I'd prefer it.Brethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15063508651955739056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-33782309891647218202010-05-25T11:57:35.808-07:002010-05-25T11:57:35.808-07:00My Dad has an interesting idea for how to deal wit...My Dad has an interesting idea for how to deal with lobbying: if you're a politician, all donations go into a blind trust. ou can check the balance quarterly, but you can only see the total. Yes, this would mean that corporate campaign contributions would have to be secret ( a problem ) but maybe the good would be better than harm?<br /><br />I also think it's ludicrous to define corporations as persons with the same free speech rights as individuals.This is not one man one vote! Not sure what to do about it, though.Jeff Shattuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12434755135113757619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-57760844783041928502010-05-25T11:41:52.449-07:002010-05-25T11:41:52.449-07:00They may well be Republicans, I don't know. T...They may well be Republicans, I don't know. That doesn't stop them from playing the lobbying game and funnelling money to those politicians that can help them.Brethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15063508651955739056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5806884.post-84275213642754745612010-05-25T11:20:40.123-07:002010-05-25T11:20:40.123-07:00Absolutely right, but have you had any luck explai...Absolutely right, but have you had any luck explaining it to lefties who believe all corporate fat cats are Republicans?erphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826044412670324694noreply@blogger.com