The money influence over the generation of ideas

nockermensch · Post by **nockermensch** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 6:08 pm

This is a problem that has been puzzling me for a while now.

1) People with money fund think tanks.
2) Think tanks generate ideas that serve the needs of people with money
3) People with money get richer and safer, invest more on step 1

Is there a way to break this vicious cycle? The think tank market seems to be completely dominated by people in service to the VIP, which should surprise absolutely nobody, because funding doesn't grow on trees.

Winnah · Post by **Winnah** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 6:31 pm

Publications should probably be required to list their sources of funding.

They should also be subject to expert or peer review when appropriate.

Harder than it sounds, especially in fields where truly independant experts may be difficult to source. Finding someone with the academic credentials and industry experience, that can be viewed as capable of making impartial assessments could be impossible.

Korgan0 · Post by **Korgan0** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 6:37 pm

Read Antonio Gramsci. One of his more persuasive ideas has to do with the need for authentic, working-class intellectuals that can contest the cultural hegemony that the bourgeoisie hold over the people through the instruments of the state. I'm not sure how this would apply to think tanks specifically, given that a think tank requires a tremendous amount of capital, and that think tanks seem to be fundamentally capitalist entities, but I'm not sure.

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 8:30 pm

[sarcasm]
Thinking? Not hardly! In Murrika, we don't need to think about shit! The Bible tells us we're right! Thinking is for those weakass liberal pukes! Thinking should be illegal!

*vignette*
"Sir, I notice some literary material in the backseat of your car. Have you been thinking?"
"Officer, I've been thinking a little, but I'm not thunk."
"Sir, I'm gonna have to take you down to the think tank until you can go for a while without having an idea."
"Let me call my wife first? I've got my cellphone right here..."
*/vignette*

America don't need any damn commie pinko thinkers!"
[/sarcasm]

I totally did not get enough sleep last night.

Essence · Post by **Essence** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 8:53 pm

I'm an ignorant savage, so I have to ask -- why does a think tank require a tremendous amount of capital?

erik · Post by **erik** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 11:12 pm

Essence wrote:I'm an ignorant savage, so I have to ask -- why does a think tank require a tremendous amount of capital?

Reputable or name brand people's consciences are more expensive.

Winnah · Post by **Winnah** » Fri Dec 07, 2012 2:58 am

A lot of think tanks are non profit or enjoy tax exempt status. Depending on the part of the world you hail from, think tank donations may be tax deductable.

Some of that money is spent on hiring academics, advertising, research, studies and office space. Ensuring that only like minded thinkers are on a discussion panel is a costly endeavor though. As is attaching your think tank to a respected institution such as a University ("sure, we have offices at Stanford"). Then you have other expenses, such as the Hudson Institute providing a silk parachute and executive board membership for Scooter Libby, then advising the US government that the should be granted a presidential pardon for his role in the Valerie Plame scandal.

Korgan0 · Post by **Korgan0** » Fri Dec 07, 2012 4:33 am

Yeah. So if one were to try to establish some kind of authentic working-class think tank, it would probably be difficult to do that without compromising the entire point of the endeavour, or so it seems.

Neeeek · Post by **Neeeek** » Fri Dec 07, 2012 11:01 am

Winnah wrote:A lot of think tanks are non profit or enjoy tax exempt status. Depending on the part of the world you hail from, think tank donations may be tax deductable.

It would be virtually impossible for a political think tank to have tax-exempt status. Political entities are specifically forbidden from tax-exempt status.

K · Post by K » Fri Dec 07, 2012 11:18 am

Winnah wrote:A lot of think tanks are non profit or enjoy tax exempt status. Depending on the part of the world you hail from, think tank donations may be tax deductable.

Some of that money is spent on hiring academics, advertising, research, studies and office space. Ensuring that only like minded thinkers are on a discussion panel is a costly endeavor though. As is attaching your think tank to a respected institution such as a University ("sure, we have offices at Stanford"). Then you have other expenses, such as the Hudson Institute providing a silk parachute and executive board membership for Scooter Libby, then advising the US government that the should be granted a presidential pardon for his role in the Valerie Plame scandal.

The Heritage Foundation gives $700K to Justice Tomas and $700K to his wife each year, so you can make a good argument that the think-tank model is just a way to buy influence and the intellectual part of it just a dodge.

Buying intellectuals has been getting harder to do in the university system, so they need some other way to buy off people.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Fri Dec 07, 2012 1:55 pm

K wrote:Buying intellectuals has been getting harder to do in the university system, so they need some other way to buy off people.

What do you mean?

Winnah · Post by **Winnah** » Fri Dec 07, 2012 3:04 pm

Neeeek wrote:
Winnah wrote:A lot of think tanks are non profit or enjoy tax exempt status. Depending on the part of the world you hail from, think tank donations may be tax deductable.
It would be virtually impossible for a political think tank to have tax-exempt status. Political entities are specifically forbidden from tax-exempt status.

Which is why many such organisations claim to have a non-partisan agenda.

Hudson Institute wrote: Thank you for support of Hudson Institute. Your tax-deductible gift will help support research and assist policymakers in making the best decisions for advancing global security, prosperity and freedom.

Please fill out the form below to make your gift to Hudson Institute today!

Wow! They do all that without being a political entity? Take my money!

Seriously though, I'm not trying to give you shit so much as find something humourous about the shit people can get away with.

K · Post by K » Sat Dec 08, 2012 4:49 am

RobbyPants wrote:
K wrote:Buying intellectuals has been getting harder to do in the university system, so they need some other way to buy off people.
What do you mean?

Right-wing ideas have been getting more non-rational since the 1970s, and that's why it's harder to buy intellectuals. I mean, you can still find actual university intellectuals who will write about the Austrian School, but ideas like global warming denialism just doesn't pass even the barest academic muster.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:47 am

Essence wrote:I'm an ignorant savage, so I have to ask -- why does a think tank require a tremendous amount of capital?

We aren't talking about blogs here. We're talking about organizations with full-time research staffs, enough writers with letters after their name to put out academic looking tirades every day, and the kinds of distributional access required to get their outputs into the media and onto the desks of prominent politicians. Some of that is sheer volume, but as K noted - a lot of that is essentially straight bribery. Clarence Thomas and family are getting almost a million and a half dollars a year in order to take a single think tank's output seriously on legal matters. And based on his voting record - it seems to work.

Neeek wrote:It would be virtually impossible for a political think tank to have tax-exempt status. Political entities are specifically forbidden from tax-exempt status.

Yeah, no. Right Wing Think Tanks are almost all tax exempt, because they classify themselves as "educational" rather than "political".

The Heritage Foundation wrote:Are donations to The Heritage Foundation tax deductible?
Yes. The Heritage Foundation is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization, and contributions are tax-deductible for income, gift, and estate taxes. Our federal tax identification number is 23-7327730.

-Username17

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sat Dec 08, 2012 11:39 am

And this is the reason why the Right/rich are so opposed to a "Let's call bullshit on more so-called-charities and revoke their tax-exempt status because seriously, you're not fooling anyone" move.

I mean it's possible to do, you set up a board that reviews these things and takes a look at where their money goes. But it's not happening.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Sat Dec 08, 2012 12:36 pm

Koumei wrote:I mean it's possible to do, you set up a board that reviews these things

I think you will find it is utterly impossible. Such things simply cannot be done. And even if they could be it would be regulation or communism or something.

And if they did that sort of stuff anymore then what next would they actually regulate and ban the (really very specific) pesticides they now know are killing all the bees in the northern hemisphere? Hahaha, no, that would inconvenience job creators...

Whatever · Post by **Whatever** » Sat Dec 08, 2012 1:57 pm

The pesticides don't kill the bees, they just make the bees get lost so that they can't return to the hive and they starve to death out in the fields (while the bees in the hive starve to death because no one returns). It's totally different!

And the IRS has trouble even going after totally nonsensical "religious" institutions (like the Church of Scientology). Mostly because the AG won't prosecute that kind of thing. It'd be even harder to go after charities.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 1:24 am

I meant theoretically possible. As in "Here is how it could be done... if it weren't for the fact that said institutions give large amounts of money to people in return for them not letting any such thing happen".

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Sun Dec 09, 2012 1:53 am

The people who oppose basic responsible regulation do not believe it is impossible because of their opposition, they claim it is flat out impossible. Because regulation is automatically bad, and automatically impossible and still automatically bad if it were possible, which it isn't, but also COMMUNISM and HITLER WAS A SOCIALIST REGULATOR.

And so on. In reality the biggest hurdle to having regulation is a massive movement of rabid morons who fight the very concept itself and would do so even if it were a matter of regulating how many babies you are allowed to mince and put in a can and call baby food. But in THEIR minds the biggest hurdle is that regulation is impossible bad wrong fun.