Pierre L'amour
19th February 2011, 02:37
The United States resembles a corporatocracy in that it seems to serve the interests of its corporations. There are certainly many ties between government and business in the nation and the world over, and corporate capitalism has created a marketplace characterized by the dominance of hierarchical, bureaucratic corporations. Why is this a problem? The majority of investor decisions are made at the top, which in turn, affects those beneath them, a corporation is more or less set up as a dictatorship of sorts. Certain shareholders are specially appointed by CEOs to vote inside the corporation, rather than any of the millions of workers, who one may ask "Should they not have the ability to decide on improving their conditions in the present and future, like voting in a democracy?" (this of course led to the formations of unions) they are at the mercy of their "superiors." And like a dictatorship, there is a separation of the masses and the government (no doubt there are a few exceptions to this, but generally this is the structure of a for-profit corporation). If a corporation is set up like a dictatorship, then how exactly is capitalism supposed to coincide with democracy so well? (now theres an odd couple). Even more peculiar, corporations are not natural persons, yet corporations are recognized by law to have the rights and responsibilities of natural persons. Corporations are able to exercise human rights against individuals and the state, and are often responsible for violating human rights. (Here's my theory on why they all to often end up violating human rights: For-profit corporations often depend on shareholders to influence the needs of a corporation, not to mention supply and demand from the consumers. So, shareholders also benefit from their relationship to the company, but without having to be a part of any of the activities they may find morally objectionable. The theory of economics is based on incentives, the shareholders have an economic incentive [they stand for an economic gain], and a moral incentive to stop them from participating in a business that violates human rights is absent since the shareholder is disjointed from the corporation, the crimes take place a world away, and they are convinced "that's just business, its a shame but there is nothing I can do to stop it." The social incentive to be a shareholder... well, to them money means status, power, and an easy life... As long as they aren't the one holding the gun they won't look bad in the eyes of their peers. It is human nature to feel sympathy, and if they were the ones that ran the sweatshop they would have a much harder time with it, but they don't have to know... They don't want to. Now, how come there are people in the corporation, or hired by it, that actually carry out the dirty deeds? Well, for some people the economic incentive overrides any sympathetic emotions, this is not the majority of people, but there are enough of them to make up a cruel task force.
These shareholders may be attracted in the first place by "Limited Liability" if the corporation is dissolved for any reason [maybe a legal reason], or if it fails, the shareholders are not responsible for any debts they corporation may have owed; Another economic incentive. This not only attracts potential shareholders, it increases the amount of money they are willing to invest and thus the power of the corporation to do whatever it may do.) Many social scientists have criticized corporations for both their amount of power and influence government policy, including the policies of regulating agencies and influencing political campaigns; and for failing to act in the interest of the people, it seems as if their existence circumvent the principles of democracy, which assumes equal power relations between individuals in a society.
Starting in the 1980's many countries with large state-owned corporations moved towards privatization, the selling of publicly owned services and enterprises to corporations. The regulation of corporate activity was reduced , accompanied by privatization (essentially allowing CEOs to give themselves innumerable bonuses they never earned.) This government of the United States most certainly serves the interests of the corporations, and it's no secret. When the big businesses were about to fail, when the banks realized their greedy mistake of giving out loans to people with abhorrent credit (I'd say that was a bit of greed on the part of the people taking out the loans as well), all the government did was give a limp verbal chastisement and then promptly proceeded in bailing them all out. The corporations in this country make quite a bit of profit off of war, but dang! Not a whole lot off of healthcare reform. The insurance companies scrambled, and if I had to guess, got some help (Oh, bribery) in watering down the bill to where it didn't make as drastic a change as was needed, and spreading a whole lot of negative propaganda towards the president (Although, I'd argue that the president is just a high profile symbol of the representitive democratic capitalistic system, and as we all know, represenative democracy [especially that of the U.S.] isn't the most of efficient of systems. And the president may never have intended for the reform to pass, they are all pawns at the hands of their money god, democrats, republicans, the U.S. utilizes quite a flawed system). Yes, the United States most certainly resembles a corporatocracy.
"I hope we shall crush ... in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country" - Thomas Jefferson
"The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism—ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. ... The Growing Concentration of Economic Power. Statistics of the Bureau of Internal Revenue reveal the following amazing figures for 1935: "Ownership of corporate assets: Of all corporations reporting from every part of the Nation, one-tenth of 1 percent of them owned 52 percent of the assets of all of them." - Franklin D. Roosevelt
"the need to maintain balance in and among national programs -- balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage." - Dwight D. Eisenhower
Mind you, I dissaprove of most, if not all, of the people quoted here, but they were on to something. ~ Pierre L'amour
These shareholders may be attracted in the first place by "Limited Liability" if the corporation is dissolved for any reason [maybe a legal reason], or if it fails, the shareholders are not responsible for any debts they corporation may have owed; Another economic incentive. This not only attracts potential shareholders, it increases the amount of money they are willing to invest and thus the power of the corporation to do whatever it may do.) Many social scientists have criticized corporations for both their amount of power and influence government policy, including the policies of regulating agencies and influencing political campaigns; and for failing to act in the interest of the people, it seems as if their existence circumvent the principles of democracy, which assumes equal power relations between individuals in a society.
Starting in the 1980's many countries with large state-owned corporations moved towards privatization, the selling of publicly owned services and enterprises to corporations. The regulation of corporate activity was reduced , accompanied by privatization (essentially allowing CEOs to give themselves innumerable bonuses they never earned.) This government of the United States most certainly serves the interests of the corporations, and it's no secret. When the big businesses were about to fail, when the banks realized their greedy mistake of giving out loans to people with abhorrent credit (I'd say that was a bit of greed on the part of the people taking out the loans as well), all the government did was give a limp verbal chastisement and then promptly proceeded in bailing them all out. The corporations in this country make quite a bit of profit off of war, but dang! Not a whole lot off of healthcare reform. The insurance companies scrambled, and if I had to guess, got some help (Oh, bribery) in watering down the bill to where it didn't make as drastic a change as was needed, and spreading a whole lot of negative propaganda towards the president (Although, I'd argue that the president is just a high profile symbol of the representitive democratic capitalistic system, and as we all know, represenative democracy [especially that of the U.S.] isn't the most of efficient of systems. And the president may never have intended for the reform to pass, they are all pawns at the hands of their money god, democrats, republicans, the U.S. utilizes quite a flawed system). Yes, the United States most certainly resembles a corporatocracy.
"I hope we shall crush ... in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country" - Thomas Jefferson
"The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism—ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. ... The Growing Concentration of Economic Power. Statistics of the Bureau of Internal Revenue reveal the following amazing figures for 1935: "Ownership of corporate assets: Of all corporations reporting from every part of the Nation, one-tenth of 1 percent of them owned 52 percent of the assets of all of them." - Franklin D. Roosevelt
"the need to maintain balance in and among national programs -- balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage." - Dwight D. Eisenhower
Mind you, I dissaprove of most, if not all, of the people quoted here, but they were on to something. ~ Pierre L'amour