7 ms·

It's not just because Zuckerburg has personal wealth. It's also because Facebook directly employs thousands of people, pays corporate taxes, enables new markets

It's not just because Zuckerburg has personal wealth. It's also because Facebook directly employs thousands of people, pays corporate taxes, enables new markets that rely on Facebook, and sells advertising to all those other corporations. His age has nothing to do with it.

AndrewKemendo 13y ago
No doubt about that, I only mentioned age because it hits home there. He's a job creator which is why he has a voice. Don't overlook the personal wealth aspect though because he was able to start that PAC fwd.us.
rayiner 13y ago
"It's also because [] directly employs thousands of people, pays corporate taxes, enables new markets that rely on []..." Insert {Halliburton, Exxon, AT&T, Comcast, BP, etc} into those brackets and you'll get a much better idea of the nature of political influence and lobbying in the U.S. This is why I think all the bluster around Citizens United and the influence of money in politics is overblown. Because at the end of the day, a post-card listing the number of employees Exxon has in a Congressman's district is just as effective as a check.
- samstave 13y ago
  Unless i am beng obtuse; i think youre missing the point: Its not that any of these large companies should not have some influence; the problem is that having shit-tons of money is the seemingly only requisite to have ANY influence in government currently. The term "oligarchy" has real and important meaning.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    You are missing the point, because the grandparent post didn't mention money, he mentioned jobs and tax revenue. That's the real leverage big companies have over Washington, not the campaign donations which is what everyone harps about. Take, for example, the last debate between Obama and Romney, where they took turns trying to show who was more pro-coal. You think it was because of campaign donations? Or all the coal mining/fracking jobs in key states like Pennsylvania?
    - samstave 13y ago
      >You think it was because of campaign donations? Or all the coal mining/fracking jobs in key states like Pennsylvania? But that is called pandering. Do I think that they were concerned with any of the coal jobs? No, I think they were concerned with public perception at the time they were visible to said public. Politicians have Schrodinger-Syndrome: They only appear to be working/accountable when you're staring at them through the lens of a national camera. All other times, they are fervently working on interests which are not yours.
sharemywin 13y ago
you mean avoid corporate taxes. http://www.policymic.com/articles/76011/facebook-has-figured-out-how-to-pay-0-in-foreign-taxes-here-s-how http://www.policymic.com/articles/76011/facebook-has-figured...
- adventured 13y ago
  They've paid $2.4 billion in income taxes in the last three years. I believe that qualifies as paying corporate taxes. By comparison, that sum is greater than their net income for the same period.
rhizome 13y ago
Here's a thought experiment: what damage would be done if Facebook up and disappeared tomorrow? To society, to business, to the economy, whatever. I'll take the "almost none" position, comparable to the season finale of "Friends."
- mullingitover 13y ago
  Playing devil's advocate, for starters, you can consider the effects of having 175 billion dollars (FB's market cap) vanish from the economy, and the effects that would have on confidence in the market. Not that I disagree with the overall premise that FB doesn't really add anything of much value (or at least anything that couldn't be quickly and easily replaced).

AndrewKemendo 13y ago

No doubt about that, I only mentioned age because it hits home there. He's a job creator which is why he has a voice. Don't overlook the personal wealth aspect though because he was able to start that PAC fwd.us.

rayiner 13y ago

"It's also because [] directly employs thousands of people, pays corporate taxes, enables new markets that rely on []..." Insert {Halliburton, Exxon, AT&T, Comcast, BP, etc} into those brackets and you'll get a much better idea of the nature of political influence and lobbying in the U.S. This is why I think all the bluster around Citizens United and the influence of money in politics is overblown. Because at the end of the day, a post-card listing the number of employees Exxon has in a Congressman's district is just as effective as a check.

samstave 13y ago
Unless i am beng obtuse; i think youre missing the point: Its not that any of these large companies should not have some influence; the problem is that having shit-tons of money is the seemingly only requisite to have ANY influence in government currently. The term "oligarchy" has real and important meaning.
- rayiner 13y ago
  You are missing the point, because the grandparent post didn't mention money, he mentioned jobs and tax revenue. That's the real leverage big companies have over Washington, not the campaign donations which is what everyone harps about. Take, for example, the last debate between Obama and Romney, where they took turns trying to show who was more pro-coal. You think it was because of campaign donations? Or all the coal mining/fracking jobs in key states like Pennsylvania?
  - samstave 13y ago
    >You think it was because of campaign donations? Or all the coal mining/fracking jobs in key states like Pennsylvania? But that is called pandering. Do I think that they were concerned with any of the coal jobs? No, I think they were concerned with public perception at the time they were visible to said public. Politicians have Schrodinger-Syndrome: They only appear to be working/accountable when you're staring at them through the lens of a national camera. All other times, they are fervently working on interests which are not yours.

sharemywin 13y ago

you mean avoid corporate taxes. http://www.policymic.com/articles/76011/facebook-has-figured-out-how-to-pay-0-in-foreign-taxes-here-s-how http://www.policymic.com/articles/76011/facebook-has-figured...

adventured 13y ago
They've paid $2.4 billion in income taxes in the last three years. I believe that qualifies as paying corporate taxes. By comparison, that sum is greater than their net income for the same period.

rhizome 13y ago

Here's a thought experiment: what damage would be done if Facebook up and disappeared tomorrow? To society, to business, to the economy, whatever. I'll take the "almost none" position, comparable to the season finale of "Friends."

mullingitover 13y ago
Playing devil's advocate, for starters, you can consider the effects of having 175 billion dollars (FB's market cap) vanish from the economy, and the effects that would have on confidence in the market. Not that I disagree with the overall premise that FB doesn't really add anything of much value (or at least anything that couldn't be quickly and easily replaced).