Our Dormant Government Justice System
From: Ralph Nader
To: James FallowsPosted Wednesday, May 1, 2002, at 12:11 PM ETWho are these people?
(This Breakfast Table entry was filed last night and posted this morning.)
Hello, Jim:
If you need some vintage copies of your The Water Lords for your sons and for yourselves, just ask. Yes, I knew that Ed Cox was dating Tricia Nixon but did not know how serious was their relationship. I remember being invited to their White House wedding and being greeted by President Richard Nixon with a remark about a defective toaster they had been talking about the previous evening.
Your phrase "litigious society" jumped out. Would you be surprised to learn that Americans filed more civil lawsuits per capita in 1830 and in 1850 than they do today? (See the research by Galanter and Rogers at the University of Wisconsin Law School.) The only fast-growing civil litigation is between corporations suing each other. Overall liability costs for the business community have been declining substantially in recent years as a percentage of overall sales—lower than $5.00 per $1,000 in sales, according to Ernst and Young. The big verdicts that grab the headlines are few and far between and are reduced by the judge or by settlement. Then there are the appellate courts. The Wall Street Journal editorialists do not seem to understand that judges, not attorneys or juries, control the courtroom, and about 80 percent of these judges are former business lawyers.
It is rarely noted that the better newspapers and news magazines (and 60 Minutes and 20/20) often report the excesses of industry and commerce, but to no avail. Nothing happens in the succeeding weeks or months, so dormant are our institutions of government to investigate, enforce the law, or enjoin such abuses.
The New York Times today continues its Page One reporting into the large buyers of supplies for hospitals. These buyers are supposed to spell bargains, but they often do not. And they are nests of commercial corruption and conflicts of interest, as other reports have documented. The Wall Street Journal, outside its editorial pages, continues being an indispensable source about corporate abuses. On Page A6 it reports on the U.S. government's crackdown regarding violators of law on offshore bank accounts, and on Page B4 it informs readers about a ruling that certain drilling leases in the West are illegal.
There's a compelling article by Paul Farhi in today's Washington Post, Page C1, on the essential role of government in our political economy especially when business fails.
It's 9:00 p.m., and I'm calling it a day. But I'm still going to read the recent Progressive Populist—a little-known but pulsating feature and opinion paper from our country's farmland.
Eat your breakfast oatmeal. Will be in touch tomorrow from Amtrak—our beleaguered and capital-starved rail-passenger system.
Ralph
Our Dormant Government Justice System
From: Ralph Nader
To: James FallowsPosted Wednesday, May 1, 2002, at 12:11 PM ETNotes From The Fray Editor:
Fray stars were out in force for this "Breakfast Table," proving that there's still a lot of strong feeling about Ralph Nader and the 2000 election. A post from the Ghost here, one from Kassandra here, and BML's contribution, here, all produced good threads (and some good arguments), as did Dilan Esper's contribution, below. RonK (of Seattle…) wasn't taking any prisoners on the subject of that Senator from Washington State, and other matters.
There's a nice post on trains from Lee, and the Fray team agrees with him that the train ride from Portland to Seattle is a winner: and that the trains go so slowly to those of us who have lived with European speeds. Publius makes the point that it is cars and trucks that did for the railway system, not airplanes.
Many many readers had comments on lawsuits. The problem is contingency fees says Trebor Ecilef. Econ Rocky's view is that "the largest legal cost is the loss of the business that is not done. By this I mean opportunities are missed because of perceived risks caused by the uncertainty of regulation and legal awards that could potentially be given." History Guy agrees with the Gerard Winstanley below: "Well over 90% of all lawsuits today, and I'd bet also in 1830, are debt collection actions…. The total number of cases has nothing to do with the impact of litigation on the economy." Leonard asks: If campaign finance reform kicks in and really does change the way money is raised in politics, will the Dems start to distance themselves from trial lawyers?...making tort reform more likely."
Reader Comments From The Fray:
There seems to me to be something tremendously anti-democratic about those who, like James Fallows, blame Ralph Nader for Gore's loss in the election. Essentially, that argument must rest on some sort of duty Nader has to stay out of the race so as to force liberal voters who didn't like Gore and didn't think he would be a good President to vote for him anyway.
I think it is quite arrogant of Fallows and other Gore supporters to say that liberals shouldn't have the opportunity to choose a presidential candidate who reflects their views. Fallows has his own vote to cast in the Presidential election; he doesn't have the right to dictate how others cast their votes. And if Gore failed to convince Nader voters to vote for Gore instead, that was entirely Gore's fault. And if we are going to cast blame, how about blaming the elites who run the Democratic Party who nominated a presidential candidate who was so weak he couldn't even carry his own state, and folks like Fallows for supporting such a loser?
--Dilan Esper
(To find or answer this post, click here.)
It's deliciously tempting to wonder what would happen if Nader was in office. All the corporate fatcats he'd take the hickory to--it's hard to even know where he'd begin. As obnoxious as America's energy, financial and health care oligarchs may be, however, I don't think society's ready to reach for his brand of problem solving just yet. If and when corrupt corporations and rent-seeking lobbyists become a serious drag on the prosperity and happiness of a majority of the American people, though, he'll be in for a renaissance.
By "serious", incidentally, I mean severe enough to outweigh the inefficiencies, costs, and oppressiveness of strong and intrusive government, which (as anyone but Nader himself could tell you) are quite considerable. I'd say a few more changes in the tax code, combined with 6 or 7 more Enrons would just about do it.
--Thrasymachus
(To find or answer this post, click here.)
It's often said the in the Good Old Days business deals were often made on a handshake, and a man was as good as his word. The first half of this statement is true. The second half is no more true than today. For that reason, the dockets of courts in the 19th century were chock full of "assumpsit" cases, occasioned by failures to fulfill promises (often not sealed with a written contract) to pay or provide goods and services. Because cash was scarce and banknotes constantly devalued or became worthless, even routine transactions were made on credit. So when someone didn't pay for that new stereo-opticon it didn't go to a collection agency: it went to court.
--Gerard Winstanley
(To find or answer this post, click here.)
(5/1)
What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
SPONSORED CONTENT
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon
Most Fast Food Restaurants Thrived During the Recession. Not Arby's.
Did Anti-Communists Really End Communism? Two Historians Say No.
Dear Farhad: How Does Facebook Know I'm Gay?
What Ever Happened to Hood Ornaments?
Are Doctors Allowed To Say They're Sorry?
Hitchens: Let's Not Get Sentimental About Communism
Notes From The Fray Editor:
Fray stars were out in force for this "Breakfast Table," proving that there's still a lot of strong feeling about Ralph Nader and the 2000 election. A post from the Ghost here, one from Kassandra here, and BML's contribution, here, all produced good threads (and some good arguments), as did Dilan Esper's contribution, below. RonK (of Seattle…) wasn't taking any prisoners on the subject of that Senator from Washington State, and other matters.
There's a nice post on trains from Lee, and the Fray team agrees with him that the train ride from Portland to Seattle is a winner: and that the trains go so slowly to those of us who have lived with European speeds. Publius makes the point that it is cars and trucks that did for the railway system, not airplanes.
Many many readers had comments on lawsuits. The problem is contingency fees says Trebor Ecilef. Econ Rocky's view is that "the largest legal cost is the loss of the business that is not done. By this I mean opportunities are missed because of perceived risks caused by the uncertainty of regulation and legal awards that could potentially be given." History Guy agrees with the Gerard Winstanley below: "Well over 90% of all lawsuits today, and I'd bet also in 1830, are debt collection actions…. The total number of cases has nothing to do with the impact of litigation on the economy." Leonard asks: If campaign finance reform kicks in and really does change the way money is raised in politics, will the Dems start to distance themselves from trial lawyers?...making tort reform more likely."
Reader Comments From The Fray:
There seems to me to be something tremendously anti-democratic about those who, like James Fallows, blame Ralph Nader for Gore's loss in the election. Essentially, that argument must rest on some sort of duty Nader has to stay out of the race so as to force liberal voters who didn't like Gore and didn't think he would be a good President to vote for him anyway.
I think it is quite arrogant of Fallows and other Gore supporters to say that liberals shouldn't have the opportunity to choose a presidential candidate who reflects their views. Fallows has his own vote to cast in the Presidential election; he doesn't have the right to dictate how others cast their votes. And if Gore failed to convince Nader voters to vote for Gore instead, that was entirely Gore's fault. And if we are going to cast blame, how about blaming the elites who run the Democratic Party who nominated a presidential candidate who was so weak he couldn't even carry his own state, and folks like Fallows for supporting such a loser?
--Dilan Esper
(To find or answer this post, click here.)
It's deliciously tempting to wonder what would happen if Nader was in office. All the corporate fatcats he'd take the hickory to--it's hard to even know where he'd begin. As obnoxious as America's energy, financial and health care oligarchs may be, however, I don't think society's ready to reach for his brand of problem solving just yet. If and when corrupt corporations and rent-seeking lobbyists become a serious drag on the prosperity and happiness of a majority of the American people, though, he'll be in for a renaissance.
By "serious", incidentally, I mean severe enough to outweigh the inefficiencies, costs, and oppressiveness of strong and intrusive government, which (as anyone but Nader himself could tell you) are quite considerable. I'd say a few more changes in the tax code, combined with 6 or 7 more Enrons would just about do it.
--Thrasymachus
(To find or answer this post, click here.)
It's often said the in the Good Old Days business deals were often made on a handshake, and a man was as good as his word. The first half of this statement is true. The second half is no more true than today. For that reason, the dockets of courts in the 19th century were chock full of "assumpsit" cases, occasioned by failures to fulfill promises (often not sealed with a written contract) to pay or provide goods and services. Because cash was scarce and banknotes constantly devalued or became worthless, even routine transactions were made on credit. So when someone didn't pay for that new stereo-opticon it didn't go to a collection agency: it went to court.
--Gerard Winstanley
(To find or answer this post, click here.)
(5/1)