Are we/have we devolved into a de facto fascist country where the line between government and big business is hard/impossible to distinguish? Or is it worse than that? Add in law enforcement (local to federal) with diminishing limits on power who are often called upon by corporations to enforce their business needs (eg, MPAA & RIAA) and you have a dangerous mix. At least for us not running the corporations.
Every generation or so, a major secular shift takes place that shakes up the existing paradigm. It happens in industry, finance, literature, sports, manufacturing, technology, entertainment, travel, communication, etc. I would like to discuss the paradigm shift that is occurring in politics.
For a long time, American politics has been defined by a Left/Right dynamic. It was Liberals versus Conservatives on a variety of issues. Pro-Life versus Pro-Choice, Tax Cuts vs. More Spending, Pro-War vs Peaceniks, Environmental Protections vs. Economic Growth, Pro-Union vs. Union-Free, Gay Marriage vs. Family Values, School Choice vs. Public Schools, Regulation vs. Free Markets.
The new dynamic, however, has moved past the old Left Right paradigm. We now live in an era defined by increasing Corporate influence and authority over the individual. These two “interest groups” – I can barely suppress snorting derisively over that phrase – have been on a headlong collision course for decades, which came to a head with the financial collapse and bailouts. Where there is massive concentrations of wealth and influence, there will be abuse of power. The Individual has been supplanted in the political process nearly entirely by corporate money, legislative influence, campaign contributions, even free speech rights.
This may not be a brilliant insight, but it is surely an overlooked one. It is now an Individual vs. Corporate debate – and the Humans are losing.
This ties in with the Supreme Court controversy over should corporations be considered persons and have a right to privacy, etc.
Bobbo- I just wanted the tiniest possible excuse to talk about taxes. Get a life…
As far the substance of your last post goes, I don’t disagree with much except I would go a lot farther than 15 years back to make the same assessment.
“pablum” That’s really funny. That’s what it was intended to be–for those(present company excepted, of course) who aren’t yet ready for solid food. Economics get much harder when you actually have to understand the math.
Party–“get a life?” Eh tu Brute? So, what non pablum point do you think is worth making? What is the narrowest brush in your palate, cause the broad brush just doesn’t work.
There is no “clear thinking” in your post #34.
This is clear thinking in your post #36 but its rather pointless-seeking pleasure in serving pablum to those who aren’t ready for solid food.
Why do that? Why not stretch yourself and connect with others doing the same?
Traditionally, fascist movements have their fake “populists” who agitate _for_ oppression — like the brownshirts.
Clearly, the Tea Party are the fake populists today.
#29
The government – OUR government – must be stronger than the biggest corporation, or it is effectively powerless.
It is impossible to enforce such a goal because many corporations are multinational. A corporation can have far more revenue than any one government because it can get revenue from effectively the entire planet whereas a government can only get money from its own people or corporations “doing business” inside of that country.
#30
A corporation, nor any business, does not exist to provide jobs nor services nor provide for the public good. If a corporation could make more economic profit with a single employee, it would. The world you described is effectively communism or simply totalitarianism. Corporations are simply a legal vehicle to encourage commerce and protect entrepreneurs.
#34
Very well said. I was going to ask the “us v them” crowd how they determine “evil corporations” from other corporations.
Finally! Somebody states what I realized for decades. “moved past the old Left Right paradigm”? No, it’s that the public has caught on to how it really is. It really been US vs the Corps, for decades. Probably since the days of the “Anti-Trust”. Back when Big Oil, Big Coal, Big Rail (no jetplanes), and Big Sugar, were all calling the shots in government. And… in order to get the voters to re-believe that their gov. worked for them, and not the big Trusts. The Anti-Trust laws were enacted. Though it was probably all for show. Because we went from having many domestic auto makers in the US, down to only three. And AT&T got broken up for a while. But now they appear to be put back together even bigger than before. And Microsoft managed to squeak thru the “anti-trust” hearing, unscathed, and un-broken-up. And Clear Channel, and one or two other corps, managed to own all the radio stations in the US. Thanks to the FCC giving licenses to just a few big political supporters of George Bush. Add to all this favoritism to big corps, as I sure Dvorak will agree, Sarbaines-Oxley puts a financial strangle hold on most small startups. That only big corps can afford to endure. You can bet big corps wrote that bill to kill any new competition.
Check out #30…..a real life communist in our midst…..
Health care fascism at work. McDonalds asks for special waivers, not available to the little guys.
http://tinyurl.com/29ha8ns
Mike==nice quote you found there, thanks for sharing—but, Shaw is making a criticism, not a comparison.
Big difference resulting in a “meaning” opposite to the one you took from it.
We think with words, but too often are confused as to the flower presented.
#45
And by the way Thomas, the US govt still has the power to regulate industry of ANY size, just not (since Saint Reagan) the will.Deregulation is surrender.
For the record, the problem with out of control corporations is generally not about the laws of regulation. It has always been about the enforcement.
Regarding sheer size and influence, if you compared Microsoft’s market cap to the GDP of countries around the world, it would rank 39th (10 years ago, their market cap would have ranked 20th today). Exxon-Mobil would rank 30th. I.e., Exxon-Mobil likely has more power than say Argentina no matter how much regulation it tries to impose. It just happens that the US has the first or second largest economy in the world so in general there isn’t anyone bigger than them (although if you account for debt, we probably drop considerably).
He is criticising all three which he finds comparable in their behavior.
>Regarding sheer size and influence, if you compared Microsoft’s market cap to the GDP of countries around the world, it would rank 39th (10 years ago, their market cap would have ranked 20th today). Exxon-Mobil would rank 30th.
And what does this mean, do you think? If you compared Argentina’s GDHP, you get a smaller number than Budget truck rental.
GDHP is gross domestic hourly product.
GDP is an annual number.
Perhaps you should compare assets, or revenues to GDP, or something else.
#48
There really is no easily accessible direct comparison metric. If there is, please feel free to post it.
The point is that because corporations can be multi-national, they have the potential to be worth more than some countries (many actually). I remember at one point Bill Gates was worth more than the entire city of Seattle. Thus, the argument that “governments must be bigger than corporations” is specious. It is already the case that many corporations are worth more (or whatever metric you wish to use) than many countries.
Poor people defend corporations because they’re dreamers.
They dream that one day they will be rich (they wont’)
They dream that one day they will be the oppressors, they will be the puppet masters, they will enjoy the fruits of selfishness.
That is the driving force behind the republican party and why it appeals to the rural poor. The urban poor know better.