4 ms·
Mostly capture of politics by shareholder interests. Once a political system becomes thoroughly permeated by the interests of a specific industry (i.e. through
by tfourb 3y ago
Mostly capture of politics by shareholder interests. Once a political system becomes thoroughly permeated by the interests of a specific industry (i.e. through campaign contributions, individuals moving from industry into politics, labour interests, etc.) it becomes quite hard for governments to make sensible decisions in that area, because industry interests and identity politics at some point become indistinguishable. See also Germany's car producers and the military-industrial-complex in the U.S.
- cmrdporcupine 3y agoSee also Alberta, Canada
- MandieD 3y agoAnd howdy from Texas and its somewhat widely distributed mineral rights, creating a landed gentry that sometimes doesn't even have to deal with the inconveniences of owning said land, but often has, on a personal level, an even more vested interest in continued petroleum extraction than the average employee of Exxon-Mobil.
- sundvor 3y agoYes. Political campaign contributions is the perfect euphemism for corruption. Corporations aren't allowed to make direct campaign contributions in Norway; political campaigns are paid for by the public. (I've been an expat for over two decades, please correct me if anything has significantly changed - of course the companies still have political influence through choices of where to invest etc, but at least it's nowhere as blatant). One might say it would be a waste of taxpayer money to do the same in Australia, but in the end we would be far better off by cutting off the direct corporate influence. We might not have gotten an EV tax instead of incentives if we had politicians not directly receiving money from big petrol. And we might just be able to raise corporate mining taxes to a far better level, clearly state that if you don't like it then just pack up and leave - and let someone else who is willing come profit instead.