Trust Us, We're Corporate America and We Care About You!

        As I’ve said before, I may not always agree with op-ed columnist Mona Charen, but, unlike the execrable Michelle Malkin, she makes a good faith effort at objectivity and proffers reasonable talking points for her opinions. Having made that point, her column today is generally aimed at “Government regulation” with examples of bad legislation in the area.  I can agree with Ms Charen that there is at times (all too often, actually) overreach and excess in that area, both at State and local levels.

 It bothers me a bit that there is some inference that said overregulation is done at the Congressional level for personal gain of those involved in its passage. I cannot say that I know or believe that to be true, but I wouldn’t generally label the entire body as corrupt in that particular area. In voicing a general dissatisfaction and critique of what the Far Right generally refers to as “Government meddling’ with business, Ms. Charen has sidled perilously close to the John Stossel camp, which is a dark place filled with misinformation and in too many cases simply lies.

I have a good friend who, although university educated, is of the same persuasion. In a discussion, post golf, one day, he announced that the problem with drug costs on America was “too much regulation and government interference.”  I reminded him that “on patent” drug prices generally are so high precisely because the government (Medicare/Medicaid) cannot bargain drug prices, due to the 2003 Part D legislation, passed by a Republican controlled Congress (both houses) and signed into law by a Republican President ergo, the prices for many drugs, which are listed at astronomical levels but bargained lower by all private insurers, are paid at asking price by Medicare/Medicaid. In short, the issue isn’t too much, but too little regulation.

On the other hand, Thalidomide was kept off market in the US precisely because of the “dreaded” government regulation.  

The standard business school curriculum defines the purpose of the corporation, simply and without any concern, whatsoever, for consumers, as “to maximize shareholder profit.”  If there be any reader who believes this implies any degree of conscience or fairness in the use and allocation of resources, they are fools. As a historian, who is familiar with the abuses of the unprotected consumer perpetrated by the likes of Rockefeller, Morgan Gould and their ilk, allow me to disabuse you of the idea that, left alone, as John Stossel, so strenuously says they should be, the vast majority of business or corporations will act in even handed fairness.

 It is true that some corporations attempt, generally in the interest of popular good will, to be fair and equitable in their field, but remember, the stockholder comes first; always has, always will.  Accordingly, Theodore Roosevelt, Republican Progressive, flew in the face of most of his party’s luminaries in calling for regulation “in the public interest” and for the protection of consumers (food and drug regulation as well as meat inspection). Have regulators overstepped their good intentions at times? Certainly, they have but the lack of regulation in the interest of the general public has led to far worse and more pervasive evils.  

       Remember the Great recession? It was the legacy of an essentially unregulated free for all in the investment banking industry, coupled with grotesquely unscrupulous lenders, eager to blame the government for their own greed and lack of character. The same is true of credit card companies and banks such as Wells Fargo which turned creating new, and fraudulent accounts into a growth industry. If the federal government fails to regulate these institutions, who will?  State legislatures are far too close to the money to act against predatory financial practices.

Sadly, and almost (to me) inexplicably, many of those who join in the cry against “excessive” regulation are among those who suffer from its lack. In many cases, they are ignorant of the niceties involved in the position, but have been told by politicians they adore that they should join in the partisan rhetoric, ignorant of real issues or not. This manifests itself in weird and ironic ways, sometimes. Just recently, I saw two bumper stickers side by side on a pickup truck tail-gate. The one on the left announced “Proud Union Retiree.”  Inexplicably, next to it was a Trump sticker. I wondered how the owner could have been a union member without realizing how hostile to unions his chosen President has shown himself to be over recent years. He has refused to pay for work done by Union labor at various properties, even solicited, then stiffed, caterers, citing that they should consider themselves “privileged” to serve him.  His administration has been universally hostile to organized labor, even to the point of disbanding a select committee on labor affairs.

       So, complain all you want about those pesky regulations, but in general they serve to protect the less powerful from unconcerned and unaccountable abuse by corporate America. If any individual actually expects large business concerns to “do the right thing” simply because they are altruistic and socially conscientious, they’d better prepare for disappointment.