5 ms·

> You need to define who you think the "big corporations that run america are" The point is regulation is determined by the highest bidder. Does it matter who

by smokeyj 14y ago

> You need to define who you think the "big corporations that run america are" The point is regulation is determined by the highest bidder. Does it matter who the highest bidder is? It doesn't change the fact that America is a whore.

DannyBee 14y ago
But it's not determined by the highest bidder, because money is not the sole driver of politics, despite what many think. Do you think Chris Dodd made more money as a Congressman, or do you think he makes more as the head of the MPAA? A Congressman would make a lot more money being a lobbyist. Most of the money they get goes towards reelection campaigns, which are wildly expensive, and deplete a large percentage of their funds. They are not Congressman because it pays a lot of money personally. If that was the goal, they'd all do short stints and move to being lobbyists. Instead, they stay in Congress for a long time. Don't get me wrong, i'm not defending anything. I'm more trying to get folks to see that it is dangerous to equate money with power in America. Power is power. Money is money. Some of one may get you some of the other. But they are not the same, and until folks get around to realizing this, they'll never change anything.
- smokeyj 14y ago
  You're right, money and power determines regulation. Let's just not fool ourselves into thinking it's something silly like "the consent of the governed".
  - DannyBee 14y ago
    Sure, i'm perfectly happy to agree to that.
  - daniel-cussen 14y ago
    Which brings us full circle to Copyright reform. Copyright (as opposed to patents, pushed by Intellectual Ventures et al) is pushed by Hollywood. Hollywood, composed of television and radio media, which heavily cross-hires with film and music. In other words: the same people who own a radio station might use their knowledge of acoustics, their installations, their relationship with relevant engineers, bring in appropriate celebrities, and so forth, so that this form of horizontal expansion is an effective, and therefore common one. Film and TV, radio and music, and all four, are frequently in the same hands. So we have the voice and the asset: entertainment being the asset, news coverage being the opinion-forming political capital. Hollywood's greatest political asset is not, as many believe, its lobbying. Certainly it engages in lobbying; most industries do. But the true, cocky power of Hollywood is its influence over its viewers. I forget most of the numbers, but I remember that in Peru, during the Fuji Mori (dictatorship) years, the government paid bribes to members within and without it. Within it: judges, and many others. Without it: television station owners! Yes sir, the largest bribes, far and away, were paid to television station owners; bribes in the millions, in a country where nobody had millions. The moral of the story? Media has a lot of political capital. So what we're left with is, Hollywood would have a strong, even gravitational, influence over Congress even without lobbying, merely because of the millions of people it influences into voting one way or another. In other words, it molds the consent of the governed.
    - yuhong 14y ago
      http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3491115 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3491115
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]

by smokeyj 14y ago

DannyBee 14y ago

But it's not determined by the highest bidder, because money is not the sole driver of politics, despite what many think. Do you think Chris Dodd made more money as a Congressman, or do you think he makes more as the head of the MPAA? A Congressman would make a lot more money being a lobbyist. Most of the money they get goes towards reelection campaigns, which are wildly expensive, and deplete a large percentage of their funds. They are not Congressman because it pays a lot of money personally. If that was the goal, they'd all do short stints and move to being lobbyists. Instead, they stay in Congress for a long time. Don't get me wrong, i'm not defending anything. I'm more trying to get folks to see that it is dangerous to equate money with power in America. Power is power. Money is money. Some of one may get you some of the other. But they are not the same, and until folks get around to realizing this, they'll never change anything.

smokeyj 14y ago
You're right, money and power determines regulation. Let's just not fool ourselves into thinking it's something silly like "the consent of the governed".
- DannyBee 14y ago
  Sure, i'm perfectly happy to agree to that.
- daniel-cussen 14y ago
  Which brings us full circle to Copyright reform. Copyright (as opposed to patents, pushed by Intellectual Ventures et al) is pushed by Hollywood. Hollywood, composed of television and radio media, which heavily cross-hires with film and music. In other words: the same people who own a radio station might use their knowledge of acoustics, their installations, their relationship with relevant engineers, bring in appropriate celebrities, and so forth, so that this form of horizontal expansion is an effective, and therefore common one. Film and TV, radio and music, and all four, are frequently in the same hands. So we have the voice and the asset: entertainment being the asset, news coverage being the opinion-forming political capital. Hollywood's greatest political asset is not, as many believe, its lobbying. Certainly it engages in lobbying; most industries do. But the true, cocky power of Hollywood is its influence over its viewers. I forget most of the numbers, but I remember that in Peru, during the Fuji Mori (dictatorship) years, the government paid bribes to members within and without it. Within it: judges, and many others. Without it: television station owners! Yes sir, the largest bribes, far and away, were paid to television station owners; bribes in the millions, in a country where nobody had millions. The moral of the story? Media has a lot of political capital. So what we're left with is, Hollywood would have a strong, even gravitational, influence over Congress even without lobbying, merely because of the millions of people it influences into voting one way or another. In other words, it molds the consent of the governed.
  - yuhong 14y ago
    http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3491115 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3491115
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]