5 ms·

There is an argument that can be made (whether good or not, not sure) that politicians represent the interest of people including whether they want Toyota to fl

There is an argument that can be made (whether good or not, not sure) that politicians represent the interest of people including whether they want Toyota to flourish or not, and represent the employee of Toyota, etc. Banning giving money to politicians is fixing a symptom rather than the root cause. Better is ban government from directing market competition. Why is the gov telling people and companies what to make when? People should do that by their choices. Tesla is a good example of something good is happening by the market. It motivated other companies to innovate in the space.

mikem170 5y ago
> There is an argument that can be made (whether good or not, not sure) that politicians represent the interest of people including whether they want Toyota to flourish or not, and represent the employee of Toyota, etc. We supposedly live in a democracy, where the people are supposed to be in charge, not abstract constructs like companies, unions, or trade associations. People vote, not companies. People should be funding political campaigns, not companies. Why should a CEO or small group of people get to decide how to deploy enormous resources to influence politician's so that they do things that run counter to the public good, just so they can make more money? This is what corporations are legally obligated to do, right? Make more money. > Better is ban government from directing market competition. Why is the gov telling people and companies what to make when? People should do that by their choices. Tesla is a good example of something good is happening by the market. It motivated other companies to innovate in the space. Your comment above seems to imply that people should accept that they fund companies through their purchases and these companies will then fund politicians? That seems contrary to the spirit of the constitution. Or maybe I'm not following the connection you're making between campaign financing and market competition. To my way of thinking the government should be run by the people, and if the people want market competition among companies then that should be the rule. People should be deciding this, not politicians who feel they are dependent on corporate campaign donations for their ego boosting careers. It seems like such a flaw in our system. I looked at a handful of other civilized countries and I haven't found one yet that allows this stuff like in the U.S. Time and time again in the news I see companies having their way with our government.
- ppp_qqq 5y ago
  > Why should a CEO or small group of people get to decide how to deploy enormous resources to influence politician's so that they do things that run counter to the public good, just so they can make more money? This is what corporations are legally obligated to do, right? Make more money. In an ideal world, everyone is looking for each other. But this is not an ideal world. CEOs, politicians, employees, and even the people who vote are all looking for themselves: they all have demands that benefit themselves. Everyone wants more money. I want free education, free transportation, etc. Why think that my wants, are somehow, on a higher ground, that the wants of the CEO? Why think that my wants, if they are the wants of more people, are somehow better the society at large than the wants of a CEO? I feel that might be making many assumptions that are not very obvious, or that I am misreading you. > Your comment above seems to imply that people should accept that they fund companies through their purchases and these companies will then fund politicians? That seems contrary to the spirit of the constitution. I apologies if I am understood that way. That is certainly not my intention. I mean that banning the transfer of money from a company to a politician will not solve the problem, because there will always be a loophole. > Or maybe I'm not following the connection you're making between campaign financing and market competition. To my way of thinking the government should be run by the people, and if the people want market competition among companies then that should be the rule. People should be deciding this, not politicians who feel they are dependent on corporate campaign donations for their ego boosting careers. Given that the US is not a democracy, people only have a say on who they elect. Politicians decided it is ok to break the market and control it, and they decided it is ok to lobby. Politicians also don't necessarily represent the people of their district/state in the strictest (by the simple fact that many did not vote for them). If it was up for the people, it is hard to say that it will be a better government, because people, like politicians, are looking for themselves and not necessarily for the overall society over time. >It seems like such a flaw in our system. I looked at a handful of other civilized countries and I haven't found one yet that allows this stuff like in the U.S. Time and time again in the news I see companies having their way with our government. Can't agree anymore. It is a system that gave birth to some great things and some terrible things.
  - mikem170 5y ago

mikem170 5y ago

> There is an argument that can be made (whether good or not, not sure) that politicians represent the interest of people including whether they want Toyota to flourish or not, and represent the employee of Toyota, etc. We supposedly live in a democracy, where the people are supposed to be in charge, not abstract constructs like companies, unions, or trade associations. People vote, not companies. People should be funding political campaigns, not companies. Why should a CEO or small group of people get to decide how to deploy enormous resources to influence politician's so that they do things that run counter to the public good, just so they can make more money? This is what corporations are legally obligated to do, right? Make more money. > Better is ban government from directing market competition. Why is the gov telling people and companies what to make when? People should do that by their choices. Tesla is a good example of something good is happening by the market. It motivated other companies to innovate in the space. Your comment above seems to imply that people should accept that they fund companies through their purchases and these companies will then fund politicians? That seems contrary to the spirit of the constitution. Or maybe I'm not following the connection you're making between campaign financing and market competition. To my way of thinking the government should be run by the people, and if the people want market competition among companies then that should be the rule. People should be deciding this, not politicians who feel they are dependent on corporate campaign donations for their ego boosting careers. It seems like such a flaw in our system. I looked at a handful of other civilized countries and I haven't found one yet that allows this stuff like in the U.S. Time and time again in the news I see companies having their way with our government.

ppp_qqq 5y ago
> Why should a CEO or small group of people get to decide how to deploy enormous resources to influence politician's so that they do things that run counter to the public good, just so they can make more money? This is what corporations are legally obligated to do, right? Make more money. In an ideal world, everyone is looking for each other. But this is not an ideal world. CEOs, politicians, employees, and even the people who vote are all looking for themselves: they all have demands that benefit themselves. Everyone wants more money. I want free education, free transportation, etc. Why think that my wants, are somehow, on a higher ground, that the wants of the CEO? Why think that my wants, if they are the wants of more people, are somehow better the society at large than the wants of a CEO? I feel that might be making many assumptions that are not very obvious, or that I am misreading you. > Your comment above seems to imply that people should accept that they fund companies through their purchases and these companies will then fund politicians? That seems contrary to the spirit of the constitution. I apologies if I am understood that way. That is certainly not my intention. I mean that banning the transfer of money from a company to a politician will not solve the problem, because there will always be a loophole. > Or maybe I'm not following the connection you're making between campaign financing and market competition. To my way of thinking the government should be run by the people, and if the people want market competition among companies then that should be the rule. People should be deciding this, not politicians who feel they are dependent on corporate campaign donations for their ego boosting careers. Given that the US is not a democracy, people only have a say on who they elect. Politicians decided it is ok to break the market and control it, and they decided it is ok to lobby. Politicians also don't necessarily represent the people of their district/state in the strictest (by the simple fact that many did not vote for them). If it was up for the people, it is hard to say that it will be a better government, because people, like politicians, are looking for themselves and not necessarily for the overall society over time. >It seems like such a flaw in our system. I looked at a handful of other civilized countries and I haven't found one yet that allows this stuff like in the U.S. Time and time again in the news I see companies having their way with our government. Can't agree anymore. It is a system that gave birth to some great things and some terrible things.
- mikem170 5y ago