Paradox of Technology and Jobs.
Pages
- 1
- 2
| Author | Topic: Paradox of Technology and Jobs. |
|---|---|
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Tuesday, May 24 2005 12:15
Profile
Apart from the US, most industrialized democracies have such strict campaign finance laws that corporations cannot really own politicians. Corporate plutocracy is basically an American problem, not a world problem (except insofar as any major American problem is a world problem ex officio). The problem with the US is that telling people that they can't spend their own money how they want is tyranny. The US has never had much time for tyranny, even though by now it's clear that sometimes a little tyranny is a good thing. -------------------- It is not enough to discover how things seem to seem. We must discover how things really seem. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Tuesday, May 24 2005 12:30
Profile
What are you talking about? How about any nation out there that would be considered "corrupt?" Indonesia comes to mind. Corporate money influences politicians the world over ALL THE TIME. In the US, to the extent possible, it's just regulated. Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Tuesday, May 24 2005 12:43
Profile
I'll concede manifestly corrupt regimes, though I sort of meant them to be excluded from 'industrialized democracies'. I had in mind Europe, the UK, Canada. And what is the situation in Japan? -------------------- It is not enough to discover how things seem to seem. We must discover how things really seem. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Tuesday, May 24 2005 12:51
Profile
Japan routinely exports pollution by way of regulated industry. For instance, it is 74% forested, and is one of the largest importers of forest products in the world. Deforestation thus occurs in the Phillipines, Papau New Guinea, and the Americas. It recognized that production of certain chemicals was harmful to its citizens. So Japanese companies sold the manufacturing rights to Sino-Japanese companies that currently operate in China, moving the problem somewhere else. Hundreds of thousands of Chinese have died as a result. My monikers more silvery and alive version suffers in the Pacific Northwest (USA) as a result of timber being cut here for export to China and Japan. This is not a problem specific to one type of government or region of the world. This is a global problem that will eventually require a global solution. I know of no organization or person that could possibly address this problem in its totality. I know I decide not to purchase "made in China" because of the myriad problems associated with production in China. That is my answer. Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2210
|
written Tuesday, May 24 2005 15:22
Profile
How amusing. The campaign finance laws in a way are meaningless. The cost to run a political campaign for any statewide level and even some mayorships has become so expensive that you must be rich to finance a campaign or receive massive amounts of money from donors to get into the race for office. The richest people usually have a corporate, legal, or medical background. In fact, if you don't have some kind of very business oriented career you simply cannot amass the amount of money it takes to start the campaign for office. It is not the extra funds from donations that is the problem. It is having the funds at all to enter a race for a politically influential spot that is becoming the problem in the United States. People start off spending massive amounts of their own money for advertising killing political campaigns before they start. Mayor Bloomberg (Bloomberg Financial) in Manhattan is a prime example of this. So is Jon Corzine (ex CEO of Bear Stearns) in New Jersey who has put up $35 million dollars of his money just to enter the race for the senate. The campaign finance does not address how much a person needs to start the race for political office. Races are bought before they start. -------------------- Wasting your time and mine looking for a good laugh. Star Bright, Star Light, Oh I Wish I May, I Wish Might, Wish For One Star Tonight. Posts: 1084 | Registered: Thursday, November 7 2002 08:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Tuesday, May 24 2005 16:41
Profile
Well, I'm dismayed that Japanese companies are exporting environmental degradation, but that sort of sounds like ordinary nationalism, not plutocracy. About the irrelevance of campaign finance laws: not at all. The only reason campaigns are expensive is that the other guy is spending a lot of money and you have to compete. If no-one is allowed by law to spend zillions on television blitzes, then no-one needs to. Democracy does predate television, after all. The problem is simply that Americans in general are not worried enough about plutocracy to accept a bit of therapeutic tyranny. -------------------- It is not enough to discover how things seem to seem. We must discover how things really seem. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Tuesday, May 24 2005 17:47
Profile
Homepage
quote:How about Italy? Its government seems a little too close to certain corporations. quote:Incidentally, the same argument applies to all advertising. In practice, though, with or without advertising, word of mouth will tend to favour old, well-known and well-established organisations in both politics and business. [ Tuesday, May 24, 2005 17:55: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Tuesday, May 24 2005 18:47
Profile
Yeh, I thought about Italy. But I concluded that it wasn't really corporate plutocracy in the sense I had in mind: in this case the politician owns the corporation, not the other way around. I'm not saying it's not a problem for Italy, though. -------------------- It is not enough to discover how things seem to seem. We must discover how things really seem. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Wednesday, May 25 2005 09:13
Profile
When does this become a problem though? Or, to put it differently, how is Europe's "less corporate influenced" nature better/superior to what the US has going? One point I will concede is mass transit, and maybe I'll concede healthcare. Overall, though, there's much more regulation and taxation than the US. Who has the better deal? At the end of the day, voters will remove an incumbant who doesn't represent their interests, whatever they may be. Currently, they seem to be "moral values," which in my mind (as well as anyone else's participating in this topic) is wrong-headed, but that doesn't change what the people's chief interest seems to be. Corporate influence or no, at the end of the day you can't buy votes in the US. Just wait and see what happens in 2006! I'm willing to bet that the Republicans will lose seats, if not the majority in one of the chambers of Congress, because they've strayed too far from their constituents' financial interests. All this Social Security reform talk is going to hurt them. [ Wednesday, May 25, 2005 09:18: Message edited by: Andrew Miller ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Wednesday, May 25 2005 09:48
Profile
Well, I guess I have to agree. Having lived in several of these different 'industrial democracies', I find them all reasonably comparable in general standard of living. If you're wealthy you do a bit better in the US, and if you're not you do a bit better in Europe. The political influence of campaign donors in the US is maybe not so much a problem as a perceived potential problem. It seems worrisome to a lot of people. But so far, at least as I see it, the extent to which corporations have influenced American public policy to the general public disadvantage doesn't seem much greater than the extent to which governments everywhere exhibit some form of corruption or incompetence. And Andrew's argument, that if American corporate plutocracy actually did start doing major public harm it would be abolished by angry voters, seems sound to me. -------------------- It is not enough to discover how things seem to seem. We must discover how things really seem. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
Pages
- 1
- 2