4 ms·

I don’t think so. Why then the phenomenon which the government has permitted of outsourcing US jobs? Have the tax cuts created more jobs? Was there a condition

I don’t think so. Why then the phenomenon which the government has permitted of outsourcing US jobs? Have the tax cuts created more jobs? Was there a condition attached that they need to employ more people? It’s quite simple, with financial power comes political power. Elections cost a lot of money these days and if you look at the donor list of both parties it’s dominated by large corporations. Edit: a more useful metric will be the percentage of total revenue paid by corporations. As can be seen the tax rate is misleading.

rayiner 9y ago
> Why then the phenomenon which the government has permitted of outsourcing US jobs? The government doesn't "permit" outsourcing of U.S. jobs. Thanks to the technology created by folks here on HN, there is nothing the government can really do if IBM decides to fire a worker in New York and hire one in Bangalore. The only thing the government can really do is offer concessions and incentives to reduce the bleeding. > It’s quite simple, with financial power comes political power. Elections cost a lot of money these days and if you look at the donor list of both parties it’s dominated by large corporations. The party that spent the most money just lost the most recent major election, so I'm not convinced money really matters much. In reality, we spend a minuscule amount on politics given the size of the country. About 0.0037% of GDP on Presidential elections, and 0.019% of GDP on lobbying. For context, we spend less on lobbying each year than we do on specialty coffee. If money really bought elections, companies would spend a lot more of it trying to do so.
- Synaesthesia 9y ago
  Well this election was different in two radical ways, two candidates who were not the first choice of corporate donors - Trump and of Bernie Sanders. It must not be forgotten that Trump is a billionaire who largely financed his own election. Bernie Sanders on public contribution. But this has been the exception rather than the rule. This scholarly study found that “economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.“ Hardly a surprising fact. Polls show most Americans believe the government is dominated by a small group of special interests who are looking out for themselves. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...
- illumin8 9y ago
  > If money really bought elections, companies would spend a lot more of it trying to do so. Even the threat of money buys politicians. Case in point: the repeal of Obamacare is wildly unpopular with the US public, but the Koch brothers got a majority of the house of representatives to vote for it. How? Simple: they threatened that any GOP representative who voted against it, would face a primary opponent in their district next year with $millions in funding. They don't even have to spend the millions (although they do), because simply the threat of a well funded primary challenger is enough for them to buy votes. It's a great tragedy that the supreme court has effectively taken our democracy away from us by ruling that money is speech, and protected by the first amendment.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    Obviously, Republicans in Congress only care about what Republican voters want. And a significant majority of registered republicans want Obamacare to be repealed. So that’s a bad example of money driving politics. Also, you’ve got it backwards about Citizens United. The Supreme Court didn’t rule that money is speech. Instead, detractors are trying to convince people that speech (the case was about a political movie) is actually money.

rayiner 9y ago

> Why then the phenomenon which the government has permitted of outsourcing US jobs? The government doesn't "permit" outsourcing of U.S. jobs. Thanks to the technology created by folks here on HN, there is nothing the government can really do if IBM decides to fire a worker in New York and hire one in Bangalore. The only thing the government can really do is offer concessions and incentives to reduce the bleeding. > It’s quite simple, with financial power comes political power. Elections cost a lot of money these days and if you look at the donor list of both parties it’s dominated by large corporations. The party that spent the most money just lost the most recent major election, so I'm not convinced money really matters much. In reality, we spend a minuscule amount on politics given the size of the country. About 0.0037% of GDP on Presidential elections, and 0.019% of GDP on lobbying. For context, we spend less on lobbying each year than we do on specialty coffee. If money really bought elections, companies would spend a lot more of it trying to do so.

Synaesthesia 9y ago
Well this election was different in two radical ways, two candidates who were not the first choice of corporate donors - Trump and of Bernie Sanders. It must not be forgotten that Trump is a billionaire who largely financed his own election. Bernie Sanders on public contribution. But this has been the exception rather than the rule. This scholarly study found that “economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.“ Hardly a surprising fact. Polls show most Americans believe the government is dominated by a small group of special interests who are looking out for themselves. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...
illumin8 9y ago
> If money really bought elections, companies would spend a lot more of it trying to do so. Even the threat of money buys politicians. Case in point: the repeal of Obamacare is wildly unpopular with the US public, but the Koch brothers got a majority of the house of representatives to vote for it. How? Simple: they threatened that any GOP representative who voted against it, would face a primary opponent in their district next year with $millions in funding. They don't even have to spend the millions (although they do), because simply the threat of a well funded primary challenger is enough for them to buy votes. It's a great tragedy that the supreme court has effectively taken our democracy away from us by ruling that money is speech, and protected by the first amendment.
- rayiner 9y ago
  Obviously, Republicans in Congress only care about what Republican voters want. And a significant majority of registered republicans want Obamacare to be repealed. So that’s a bad example of money driving politics. Also, you’ve got it backwards about Citizens United. The Supreme Court didn’t rule that money is speech. Instead, detractors are trying to convince people that speech (the case was about a political movie) is actually money.