Anonymous I’m curious how high you rate them…

Anonymous:

I’m curious how high you rate them both on integrity out of 10 and how much you figure that matters

slatestarscratchpad:

Sanders: 10/10 on integrity. Clinton, I don’t know, maybe 5/10?

I don’t think it matters very much. I feel like a big part of this election has been people revolting against a supposed system of elites bribing politicians to implement evil policies – that’s part of why Trump’s so popular, he can honestly claim to be self-funding and so not beholden to campaign contributions. But I don’t think there are clearly great policies which the only reason we’re not enacting is because politicians are too corrupt (w/ possible exception of ending various forms of corporate welfare). I think most issues are genuinely hard, or genuinely involve conflicting ideologies.

Also, in cases where companies are bribing candidates to go against the popular will, at least half the time I’m more in line with the companies. I think there are a lot of populist ideas, like totally closed borders, which are pretty bad, and that companies which have economic self-interest and some common sense provide a useful check and balance against those.

Yeah, I was surprised the other day with the thought, “But, what is actually the problem with corporate cronyism?”

I would much rather my own industry (oil & gas) be strongly involved in regulating itself than have a bunch of clueless politicians drafting laws that sound good and appeal to their constituencies but actually destroy value needlessly. I say this not because I want my industry to be able to do whatever it wants, but because my industry knows what needs to be done to establish good competitive practices, evenhanded but realistic environmental regulations, and sound trade policies within its own domain.

If I extrapolate this view to “Wall Street”, then I’m sure my opposite number at Goldman Sachs really genuinely thinks that it would be in the nation’s best interests to let the banks collaboratively formulate their own regulations. Competition between individual banks motivates all banks to be in favor of rules that ensure fair competition and consistent application of the law.

I suppose there’s some line between “purely corrupt de facto corporate oligarchy” and “republic with a moderate amount of corporate influence” but I think we’re mostly on the right side of that line.