8 ms·

In a globalised economy, breaking up your own multinationals because they have an effective monopoly in you own country is to concede the global market to forei

In a globalised economy, breaking up your own multinationals because they have an effective monopoly in you own country is to concede the global market to foreign competitors. Capitalism and global markets are now more powerful than any individual nation.

praptak 10y ago
People haven't yet realised that it's not EU versus US versus China but rather corporations versus the people. If they did, states would cooperate more so as not to let corps play one against the other and thus screw everyone. Anyway, the solution to the particular problem of the rich owning Congress isn't breaking multinationals but rather limits on campaign donations - this whole "money is speech" argument is just bullshit.
- simion314 10y ago
  I agree with the limits in campaigns, I am not from US and here too lot of money it is spent in campaigns and after election the politicians must pay the money back with favors, so IMO no limits encourages corruption, and the money spent on campaigns could be used in a better way.
- bigtimeidiot 10y ago
  >People haven't yet realised Thankfully we have enlightened people among us to guide the sheep, right? >that it's not EU versus US versus China but rather corporations versus the people Corporations have zero ability to act by themselves. So where do you propose to draw the between the "corporation team" and the "people team"?
  - jessaustin 10y ago
    Viruses and mad dogs also have little innate volition. We still put them down, if we can.
  - dang 10y ago
    > Thankfully we have enlightened people among us to guide the sheep, right? Please don't do this here. If another comment takes a wrong turn, going further that way doesn't help. Instead, please help the thread self-correct by posting more substantively.
- ciq_steve 10y ago
  3M, Activision and Alaska Air Group (3 S&P 500 companies) are a bigger threats than the government? I'd venture to say between corporations and governments 99% of 'bad things' that have happened in the last century were at the hands of governments. A few world wars is a good starting place. The idea that governments are benevolent overseers of the common good is what is bullshit. Those in government are as self-interested (if not more) as any other group (lawyers, plumbers, etc). The last thing the rich want to do is kow-tow to a bunch of politicians, but the reality is they have to because one poorly conceived law or regulation can do real harm to a business. You have to pay to be at the table to do the best you can to prevent this. Politicians demand $$$$ to be at that table. I've seen this first hand.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- jessaustin 10y ago
  ...the solution to the particular problem of the rich owning Congress isn't breaking multinationals but rather limits on campaign donations... That's so cute. If only this super-powerful threat to humanity could be directed toward the good rather than the banal, all would be well! Bullshit. The threat itself is the problem, not who is temporarily at the reins. In fact this whole myth of "if we vote hard enough it will work this time!" was created by those who want to perpetuate the monster, so that they may profit by it.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- cies 10y ago
  > People haven't yet realised that it's not [some dividing topic] but rather corporations versus the people. Maybe you should try to meet some socialists. But the authoritarian ones (like Marx) and the anti-authoritarian ones (like Peter Kropotkin, Emma Goldman and Murray Bookchin) have written many books on the topic of class-struggle.
emt02 10y ago
Personally I don't think we can accept Capitalism and global markets to be more powerful than any individual nation. Especially given the current trend in automation, the risk that a relatively small group of capitalists will slowly take full control of almost all the means of production is real. Another huge problem of having a world run by corporations is the environmental situation. Personally I cannot accept a world where profit is considered more important than the environment to such an extent. I don't know what the solution to this problem may be. Alternatives to capitalism have been proposed in the past, and are continuously studied now, but shifting to another economical system would not be easy, if possible at all at this point.
- WalterBright 10y ago
  > I cannot accept a world where profit is considered more important than the environment to such an extent. Are you sure that government operations produce less pollution? Anyhow, the way to deal with pollution in a market based economy is to tax it.
  - emt02 10y ago
    > Are you sure that government operations produce less pollution? No, I'm not sure. But we're talking about private companies now, not governments. Governments and companies in the end are two faces of the same coin: the first aim at power, the latter aim at profit (with some exceptions of course). Moreover, many proposed alternatives to capitalism consider the governments (as we know them today) harmful and unnecessary. I'm not saying I agree, just wanted to point out that removing capitalism does not automatically mean to give more power to governments. > Anyhow, the way to deal with pollution in a market based economy is to tax it. Sure, but that doesn't solve the problem, it just reduces its impact. And in a world that runs on profit, limiting your local companies may in the end give an advantage to the foreign ones, so this solution may not always be practicable, unless a truly global coordinated action gets taken.
    - WalterBright 10y ago
      > Sure, but that doesn't solve the problem, it just reduces its impact. There's no reason it cannot reduce pollution to tolerable levels. > removing capitalism does not automatically mean to give more power to governments Yes, it does. Who/what else is going to prevent people from trading for a profit?
anonymfus 10y ago
There is a need for global antitrust and environmental agencies.
- lithos 10y ago
  I don't look forward to seeing how it will be twisted beyond recognition.
mcv 10y ago
If you see the global market as a contest to see which country can suck up to the big corporations the most, it's a race to the bottom for everybody. Countries need to take anti-trust issues seriously, and work together on them. And maybe don't allow foreign companies onto your market if they have a monopoly back home.
godmodus 10y ago
Not sure why youre being downvoted. Its a bleak comment, but still true. There are many individuals and their respected conglomerates who own sums that equal and exceed the wealth of many nations. Our systems and even our own nature allows for this. And its bad. Real bad. Some are benevolent, most arent. I mean this does sound conspiracy'ish, but it really isnt. We will feel the brunt of it all soon, and we'll need viable solutions, a new way of government, and a new way of sustaining ourselves that avoids such concentrations of power.

praptak 10y ago

People haven't yet realised that it's not EU versus US versus China but rather corporations versus the people. If they did, states would cooperate more so as not to let corps play one against the other and thus screw everyone. Anyway, the solution to the particular problem of the rich owning Congress isn't breaking multinationals but rather limits on campaign donations - this whole "money is speech" argument is just bullshit.

simion314 10y ago
I agree with the limits in campaigns, I am not from US and here too lot of money it is spent in campaigns and after election the politicians must pay the money back with favors, so IMO no limits encourages corruption, and the money spent on campaigns could be used in a better way.
bigtimeidiot 10y ago
>People haven't yet realised Thankfully we have enlightened people among us to guide the sheep, right? >that it's not EU versus US versus China but rather corporations versus the people Corporations have zero ability to act by themselves. So where do you propose to draw the between the "corporation team" and the "people team"?
- jessaustin 10y ago
  Viruses and mad dogs also have little innate volition. We still put them down, if we can.
- dang 10y ago
  > Thankfully we have enlightened people among us to guide the sheep, right? Please don't do this here. If another comment takes a wrong turn, going further that way doesn't help. Instead, please help the thread self-correct by posting more substantively.
ciq_steve 10y ago
3M, Activision and Alaska Air Group (3 S&P 500 companies) are a bigger threats than the government? I'd venture to say between corporations and governments 99% of 'bad things' that have happened in the last century were at the hands of governments. A few world wars is a good starting place. The idea that governments are benevolent overseers of the common good is what is bullshit. Those in government are as self-interested (if not more) as any other group (lawyers, plumbers, etc). The last thing the rich want to do is kow-tow to a bunch of politicians, but the reality is they have to because one poorly conceived law or regulation can do real harm to a business. You have to pay to be at the table to do the best you can to prevent this. Politicians demand $$$$ to be at that table. I've seen this first hand.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
jessaustin 10y ago
...the solution to the particular problem of the rich owning Congress isn't breaking multinationals but rather limits on campaign donations... That's so cute. If only this super-powerful threat to humanity could be directed toward the good rather than the banal, all would be well! Bullshit. The threat itself is the problem, not who is temporarily at the reins. In fact this whole myth of "if we vote hard enough it will work this time!" was created by those who want to perpetuate the monster, so that they may profit by it.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
cies 10y ago
> People haven't yet realised that it's not [some dividing topic] but rather corporations versus the people. Maybe you should try to meet some socialists. But the authoritarian ones (like Marx) and the anti-authoritarian ones (like Peter Kropotkin, Emma Goldman and Murray Bookchin) have written many books on the topic of class-struggle.

emt02 10y ago

Personally I don't think we can accept Capitalism and global markets to be more powerful than any individual nation. Especially given the current trend in automation, the risk that a relatively small group of capitalists will slowly take full control of almost all the means of production is real. Another huge problem of having a world run by corporations is the environmental situation. Personally I cannot accept a world where profit is considered more important than the environment to such an extent. I don't know what the solution to this problem may be. Alternatives to capitalism have been proposed in the past, and are continuously studied now, but shifting to another economical system would not be easy, if possible at all at this point.

WalterBright 10y ago
> I cannot accept a world where profit is considered more important than the environment to such an extent. Are you sure that government operations produce less pollution? Anyhow, the way to deal with pollution in a market based economy is to tax it.
- emt02 10y ago
  > Are you sure that government operations produce less pollution? No, I'm not sure. But we're talking about private companies now, not governments. Governments and companies in the end are two faces of the same coin: the first aim at power, the latter aim at profit (with some exceptions of course). Moreover, many proposed alternatives to capitalism consider the governments (as we know them today) harmful and unnecessary. I'm not saying I agree, just wanted to point out that removing capitalism does not automatically mean to give more power to governments. > Anyhow, the way to deal with pollution in a market based economy is to tax it. Sure, but that doesn't solve the problem, it just reduces its impact. And in a world that runs on profit, limiting your local companies may in the end give an advantage to the foreign ones, so this solution may not always be practicable, unless a truly global coordinated action gets taken.
  - WalterBright 10y ago
    > Sure, but that doesn't solve the problem, it just reduces its impact. There's no reason it cannot reduce pollution to tolerable levels. > removing capitalism does not automatically mean to give more power to governments Yes, it does. Who/what else is going to prevent people from trading for a profit?

anonymfus 10y ago

There is a need for global antitrust and environmental agencies.

lithos 10y ago
I don't look forward to seeing how it will be twisted beyond recognition.

mcv 10y ago

If you see the global market as a contest to see which country can suck up to the big corporations the most, it's a race to the bottom for everybody. Countries need to take anti-trust issues seriously, and work together on them. And maybe don't allow foreign companies onto your market if they have a monopoly back home.

godmodus 10y ago

Not sure why youre being downvoted. Its a bleak comment, but still true. There are many individuals and their respected conglomerates who own sums that equal and exceed the wealth of many nations. Our systems and even our own nature allows for this. And its bad. Real bad. Some are benevolent, most arent. I mean this does sound conspiracy'ish, but it really isnt. We will feel the brunt of it all soon, and we'll need viable solutions, a new way of government, and a new way of sustaining ourselves that avoids such concentrations of power.