> The idea that business leaders can be ever considered genuine political or cultural voice or actor is the problem. Silicon Valley and hacker culture has creat

> The idea that business leaders can be ever considered genuine political or cultural voice or actor is the problem. Silicon Valley and hacker culture has created an atmosphere of business politicians and for some reason hackers take them seriously and don't laugh at their faces. > Traditionally business people don't get into discussions of culture or politics directly. They might work in the background, but never directly. There is a good reason for that. What is "traditional" for you? East India Company and the VOC (Dutch East Indies Company) conquering lands and colonising people, and directing foreign and military policy for centuries traditional enough? Stabdard Oil's Rockefeller influenced politics aplently. William Randolph Hearst was the son of a Senator, businessman, newspaper publisher and politician who was among the main causes for a war for colonies. The Dole Company, United Fruit company, Standard Fruit company literally toppled governments and operated death squads, and often had enough influence to get the US marines involved ("War is a Racket" by a Marine general who took part in the banana wars describes this nicely). JFK's father was a businessman who got into politics for his and his family's interests. In Russia, oligarchs are the ruling class and are politics, and have been for the past 30 years. In the US, you have multiple businesspeople and very rich people in the upcomming cabinet. South Korea is sometimes jokingly referred to as the Republic of Samsung due to the outsized influence Samsung have on their GDP (22%), with ramifications such as their high level execs getting pardoned of crimes such as bribery of public officials due to the impact it would have on the company and country. Business has always tried to influence politics in its favour, which often escalated into branching put into politics, often directly.