| >We have been transported back to the early 20th century >Brandeis wanted to eliminate monopolies, because (in the words of his biographer Melvin Urofsky) “in a democratic society the existence of large centers of private power is dangerous to the continuing vitality of a free people.” >Brandeis generally opposed regulation — which, he worried, inevitably led to the corruption of the regulator Reading American Economic History has given me the idea that problems of corruption were taken more seriously in the past than they are today -- which this article seems to be alluding to. It seems to be an issue that isn't circulating today. I've never heard of someone mention Andrew Jackson with reference to how fiercely he seemed to want to fight against corruption. Lincoln gave the banks the finger and instead, empowered congress to take control of the nation's money supply, and won a war in which the banks had been betting against him by doing this. By contrast, it seems today people view big banks as a kind of mandatory evil that we should just shut up about and tolerate. Further, it does appear that most politicians, especially Presidents, must be subservient to the interests of lobbies and power groups in Washington. Perhaps also, today we take it for granted that a lot of good sense was taken in the past to build this country. I have a strong sense that today's political climate and social culture is ignoring growing problems of the bigness described in the article--concentrations of power. I have heard a lot of people say everything is corrupt, it doesn't matter, which at least in my reading, appears to have not been the case in the past. If that is true, I'm not sure if America would look the same today if it wasn't true. |
On the contrary, I think the population would LOVE to vote for a President that isn't owned by Goldman Sachs, but there just isn't one. We sort of almost kinda got there with Bernie Sanders, but the establishment wouldn't let that happen.