4 ms·

> Corporations are stuck in the middle looking at their bottom line, but pressured from both sides. Maybe some of them fall into this category, but many of the

> Corporations are stuck in the middle looking at their bottom line, but pressured from both sides. Maybe some of them fall into this category, but many of the others are the ones pulling most of the strings. They are responsible for millions of dollars in campaign contributions, whereby they essentially buy seats in the House and Senate and dictate much of the legislation. They influence voters through mass advertising and propaganda, they influence the representatives through lobbyists and the threat of withdrawing their financial support. The "government" then becomes a battlefield between the ignorant, the manipulated, the enlightened, and the powerful manipulators sitting at the top.

CWuestefeld 16y ago
many of the others are the ones pulling most of the strings This seems to be a chicken-and-egg question to me. I'm not sure how you can determine whose strings are being pulled, and who are the pullers. Is it really the corps that are coercing the politicians into misbehavior? Or is it the politicians that create an environment in which corporations can gain an advantage by doing so?
- borism 16y ago
  Who has more money and power in your opinion? The answer of course differs by country - it's one extreme in the US and another extreme in Russia or China.
  - CWuestefeld 16y ago
    Perhaps I don't understand the question, because I can't see that the answer is variable. In all countries today, the power of the government, or an individual politician, exceeds that of a corporation. That's obviously true, or why else would the corporations be contributing to political election campaigns? Corporations are (despite popular complaints) at the mercy of their customers; look at the OP for an example of how corporations are held instantly responsible for any perceived action, contrasted to politicians who "launch an investigation" and then the problem is forgotten long before the next election, or who use demagoguery to convince voters that they are the lesser evil; if the opponent wins the country will fall apart. Similarly, in all cases the government controls far more money than any corporation. What portion of the GDP does the government's budget make up? Compare that to the revenue of any corporation. EDIT: OK, guys. I'll take a down-vote, but please give me the courtesy of an explanation as to why I'm wrong.
    - borism 16y ago
      Yes, theoretically national power supersedes power of any single corporation in that country. That doesn't mean that corporations as a whole don't influence governments or vice versa. It all comes down to who needs whom the most. US multinationals do depend on security provided by US Government, but they can exist without it too. The US Government on the other hand is absolutely and wholly dependent on large multinationals, at least in it's current form. In China or Russia it's the other way around. Government does work with both domestic and multinational big co's, but shall the need arise they will be reduced to Nil in no time as has been demonstrated time and time again. P.S. power of any individual politician exceeds that of largest corporations? Seriously?
      - CWuestefeld 16y ago
        US multinationals ... can exist without [the US government] too. Yes, in the sense that they don't need to rely on the government. On the other hand, they are at the mercy of the government. One quick flourish of the pen, and a company can be destroyed. Obviously this is true at the startup scale, where a niche can simply be erased. But even at the larger scale, a national decision to back one approach can be devastating (as in FCC decisions). Or antitrust actions can decimate a company (ATT, IBM, narrowly avoided by Microsoft). The bottom line is that the government has the guns, literally. The US Government on the other hand is absolutely and wholly dependent on large multinationals I simply can't see how this is the case. Can you explain further? I mean, I don't see how the government needs Google or GM in any way. power of any individual politician exceeds that of largest corporations? I probably made that sound grander than I should have. In once sense, if every other politician is against you, then in general, winning one to your side won't help. However, in more realistic circumstances, winning a single person to your side (especially with America's committee system) can make all the difference. A single congressman influencing the language of a bill can mean hundreds of $millions in income, or the complete obsolescence of your business plan.
        borism 16y ago
        One quick flourish of the pen, and a company can be destroyed. Obviously this is true at the startup scale, where a niche can simply be erased. But even at the larger scale, a national decision to back one approach can be devastating (as in FCC decisions). Or antitrust actions can decimate a company (ATT, IBM, narrowly avoided by Microsoft). This is just absolutely not true. When US president has the guts to suggest that company(ies) responsible for largest ecological disaster in US history should pay for it, it equalled to "shake-down" to people currently running US legislative branch, then what are we even arguing about? ATT, IBM and MSFT were decimated? Seriously? They were broken-up, as they were approaching monopoly (that's a good thing you know), but all three examples and their spin-offs are thriving since then. One thing you got right though - start-up world is risky.

CWuestefeld 16y ago

many of the others are the ones pulling most of the strings This seems to be a chicken-and-egg question to me. I'm not sure how you can determine whose strings are being pulled, and who are the pullers. Is it really the corps that are coercing the politicians into misbehavior? Or is it the politicians that create an environment in which corporations can gain an advantage by doing so?

borism 16y ago
Who has more money and power in your opinion? The answer of course differs by country - it's one extreme in the US and another extreme in Russia or China.
- CWuestefeld 16y ago
  Perhaps I don't understand the question, because I can't see that the answer is variable. In all countries today, the power of the government, or an individual politician, exceeds that of a corporation. That's obviously true, or why else would the corporations be contributing to political election campaigns? Corporations are (despite popular complaints) at the mercy of their customers; look at the OP for an example of how corporations are held instantly responsible for any perceived action, contrasted to politicians who "launch an investigation" and then the problem is forgotten long before the next election, or who use demagoguery to convince voters that they are the lesser evil; if the opponent wins the country will fall apart. Similarly, in all cases the government controls far more money than any corporation. What portion of the GDP does the government's budget make up? Compare that to the revenue of any corporation. EDIT: OK, guys. I'll take a down-vote, but please give me the courtesy of an explanation as to why I'm wrong.
  - borism 16y ago
    Yes, theoretically national power supersedes power of any single corporation in that country. That doesn't mean that corporations as a whole don't influence governments or vice versa. It all comes down to who needs whom the most. US multinationals do depend on security provided by US Government, but they can exist without it too. The US Government on the other hand is absolutely and wholly dependent on large multinationals, at least in it's current form. In China or Russia it's the other way around. Government does work with both domestic and multinational big co's, but shall the need arise they will be reduced to Nil in no time as has been demonstrated time and time again. P.S. power of any individual politician exceeds that of largest corporations? Seriously?
    - CWuestefeld 16y ago
      US multinationals ... can exist without [the US government] too. Yes, in the sense that they don't need to rely on the government. On the other hand, they are at the mercy of the government. One quick flourish of the pen, and a company can be destroyed. Obviously this is true at the startup scale, where a niche can simply be erased. But even at the larger scale, a national decision to back one approach can be devastating (as in FCC decisions). Or antitrust actions can decimate a company (ATT, IBM, narrowly avoided by Microsoft). The bottom line is that the government has the guns, literally. The US Government on the other hand is absolutely and wholly dependent on large multinationals I simply can't see how this is the case. Can you explain further? I mean, I don't see how the government needs Google or GM in any way. power of any individual politician exceeds that of largest corporations? I probably made that sound grander than I should have. In once sense, if every other politician is against you, then in general, winning one to your side won't help. However, in more realistic circumstances, winning a single person to your side (especially with America's committee system) can make all the difference. A single congressman influencing the language of a bill can mean hundreds of $millions in income, or the complete obsolescence of your business plan.
      - borism 16y ago
        One quick flourish of the pen, and a company can be destroyed. Obviously this is true at the startup scale, where a niche can simply be erased. But even at the larger scale, a national decision to back one approach can be devastating (as in FCC decisions). Or antitrust actions can decimate a company (ATT, IBM, narrowly avoided by Microsoft). This is just absolutely not true. When US president has the guts to suggest that company(ies) responsible for largest ecological disaster in US history should pay for it, it equalled to "shake-down" to people currently running US legislative branch, then what are we even arguing about? ATT, IBM and MSFT were decimated? Seriously? They were broken-up, as they were approaching monopoly (that's a good thing you know), but all three examples and their spin-offs are thriving since then. One thing you got right though - start-up world is risky.