business control the government ? [Archive]

Schrödinger's Cat

1st November 2008, 09:30

But what should I say so those conservatives understand how business has control over the government?

Just use truth:

Two-thirds of all corporations don't pay the corporate tax:
http://genxfinance.com/2008/08/20/two-thirds-of-corporations-dont-pay-taxes-nothing-more-than-political-hogwash/

Agricultural subsidization is mostly welfare for the wealthy: http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2007/07/farm_subsidies_for_the_rich_co.html

The federal government alone gives $150 billion each year in the form of subsidies:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=corporate+welfare&btnG=Search

The average net wealth of your Congressman is $21,000,000, and the average net wealth of your Senator is $60,000,000: http://www.pcij.org/stories/2004/congress.html

Our energy bills, which are advised by employees of oil companies, give tax breaks to Big Oil: http://www.earthshare-oregon.org/our-groups/profiles/nwf/energybill

Ten corporations and their subsidiaries control about 80% of all television networks: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE4DF143AF93AA15757C0A9619482 60

Our voting machines are outsourced to private companies, some of which have direct ties to political parties: http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0131-01.htm

Wars profit manufacturers of guns, steel, automobiles, automobiles, body armor, boots, packaged food, tires, and extraction industries that deal with coal, silver, and so on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_profiteering#Commodity_dealers

When we need more money, the Federal Reserve prints bills, which it sometimes gives to banks, and then the banks will loan our money back to us and charge taxpayers interest: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=the+federal+reserve&btnG=Search

Wal-Mart gets close to $2 billion each year in subsidies and tax breaks: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=wal-mart+%2B+subsidized&btnG=Search

Burger King and Mcdonald's farms are almost completely subsidized: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Mcdonald%27s+farm+%2B+subsidized&btnG=Search

98% of all newspapers in a city or town are monopolies, less than 15 corporations control most popular news sources: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=7&issue_area_id=6

The top 1,000 major corporations have 35,000 full-time lobbyists: http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Ralph_Nader_Corporations.htm

Historically for large organizations to exist and utilize economics of scale, the government needs to create corporate charters, subsidies, patents, copyrights, land grants, and tax benefits. So how do they defend capitalism as being free when it relies directly on the government to exist? How come we have to bail out all three of the leading American car manufacturers at risk of losing an entire market?

Rascolnikova

1st November 2008, 15:37

TheDevil'sApprentice

1st November 2008, 21:50

Might be a good idea to start with how business controls the media (obviously the media has a lot of influence on how people vote):

Easy reading & specific examples:
http://www.medialens.org/

Excerpts from an excellent scholarly tratment of the topic:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/Manufacturing_Consent.html

Summary of that:
http://www.medialens.org/about/overview_of_the_propaganda_model.php

spice756

2nd November 2008, 00:07

But the conservatives are going to say that is not capitalism we have socialists for the rich and businesses not the poor .

And they really do not understand how business control the government .

RGacky3

2nd November 2008, 03:00

Just like I said, they CONTROL everything literally, because they own everything. its common sense.

Schrödinger's Cat

2nd November 2008, 06:58

But the conservatives are going to say that is not capitalism we have socialists for the rich and businesses not the poor .

And they really do not understand how business control the government .

Then you retort that they're defining capitalism differently than we are, and you go on to say you're talking about an observable historical movement that has been around since the 1500s, while they're talking about some narrowly defined market.

Bud Struggle

2nd November 2008, 21:12

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/ (http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/)

I think William Domhoff (the above link) does an excellent job at detailing the way this works at the local level, and implying strongly how it works at higher levels. . . And as far as more detail for higher levels works, I'm not certain but I'd bet Chomsky has written about it.

Actually, this is--interesting enough, DEAD ON--at least on the local level. (I'm suprised, the Left doesn't always get this kind of stuff right much.)

As I posted in another thread--I personally don't quite know who the real Power Elite are. I can kind of see them in a fuzzy way--I may have even met some of them, but nothing's sure or certain--but I believe they are there because I am there on a local level. And Domhoff is, as I said, dead on when it comes to the local level. I own and rent out commercial and industrial properties--and I go, or have lawyers go to zoning meeting, and Commission meetings and Board meeting of all sorts. And usually there's no problem with anything I want to do--no one else goes no one understands really what I'm doing. I'll get a zoning variance in the middle of nowhere for no real reason that anyone can see--noone opposes me and nothing gets done for a couple of years--and then I build something. Easy.

I'm on a first name basis with all sorts of Commissioners--they call me up for campaign contributions and I give a couple of hundred here and a couple of hundred there and we're all friends. And the thing is--the commissioners are doing the same thing. You can go to a County commission meeting and watch how often Commissioners "abstain" from votes--"I have to abstain from this vote--I own property of X Road". Now all these guys vote for each other's "projects" so nothing gets voted down.

On the other hand I have to say--it's all pretty open. If you want to get in on the business end of this sort of local politics--it's mostly a matter of showing up, spreading a few dollars around and making a case.

I wonder if it's the same with Big Time Politics.

Rascolnikova

3rd November 2008, 07:46

Actually, this is--interesting enough, DEAD ON--at least on the local level. (I'm suprised, the Left doesn't always get this kind of stuff right much.)

As I posted in another thread--I personally don't quite know who the real Power Elite are. I can kind of see them in a fuzzy way--I may have even met some of them, but nothing's sure or certain--but I believe they are there because I am there on a local level. And Domhoff is, as I said, dead on when it comes to the local level. I own and rent out commercial and industrial properties--and I go, or have lawyers go to zoning meeting, and Commission meetings and Board meeting of all sorts. And usually there's no problem with anything I want to do--no one else goes no one understands really what I'm doing. I'll get a zoning variance in the middle of nowhere for no real reason that anyone can see--noone opposes me and nothing gets done for a couple of years--and then I build something. Easy.

I'm on a first name basis with all sorts of Commissioners--they call me up for campaign contributions and I give a couple of hundred here and a couple of hundred there and we're all friends. And the thing is--the commissioners are doing the same thing. You can go to a County commission meeting and watch how often Commissioners "abstain" from votes--"I have to abstain from this vote--I own property of X Road". Now all these guys vote for each other's "projects" so nothing gets voted down.

On the other hand I have to say--it's all pretty open. If you want to get in on the business end of this sort of local politics--it's mostly a matter of showing up, spreading a few dollars around and making a case.

I wonder if it's the same with Big Time Politics.

I have to say, I don't know who exactly you think the left is. As far as I'm concerned, this is a significant part of why anyone would be part of the left.

I think that the "openness" of this mechanism is one of the great lies of capitalism. I can't show up at city council meeting every week, and for some reason I haven't managed to send my lawyers either. I can live on 400$ a month, and sometimes I do; to "spread a few dollars around" for me would entail dropping out of school, or going without very basic nutrition and health care.

This inability, and bastards like you (nothing personal) explain why the parks in my city are being built over with apartment complexes, why the river and the lake are being destroyed, why we have 300 people sleeping on the street every night and aren't able to build a homeless shelter, why the air is among the worst in the country, why my sister's family goes to a public library with holes in the roof, why I have to pay to park in front of my house, why my landlord is able to screw me in over with opaque carelessness and impunity, and why virtually everyone I know thinks the government doesn't care about them and they have no voice in it--they're right. The government is too busy caring about and listening to you. This system is not actually available to us.

Bud Struggle

3rd November 2008, 12:09

I have to say, I don't know who exactly you think the left is. As far as I'm concerned, this is a significant part of why anyone would be part of the left. I guess the stuff I've been reading lately has been a lot more abstruse--Stalin and Trotsky arguing over the difference between Permanent Revolution and Proletarian Revolution. :rolleyes:

I think that the "openness" of this mechanism is one of the great lies of capitalism. I can't show up at city council meeting every week, and for some reason I haven't managed to send my lawyers either. I can live on 400$ a month, and sometimes I do; to "spread a few dollars around" for me would entail dropping out of school, or going without very basic nutrition and health care. Well see, you have to take an interest. You can't expect to just ELECT people and have them do all of the work. YOU have to become involved in the meetings and discussions. The Bourgeois certainly take part in the government's discussions and decisions. How are you going to have a Revolution if you can't get to a City Council meeting? But seriously--you raise a good point, especially about cities--when I lived in NYC I wouldn't go near those kids of meetings, I always figured them as being corrupt. On the other hand where I live and do lost of my business in Florida, I think County Commissions are pretty open and responsive to any citizen's complaint or suggestion.

But you have to show up--

This inability, and bastards like you (nothing personal) explain why the parks in my city are being built over with apartment complexes, why the river and the lake are being destroyed, why we have 300 people sleeping on the street every night and aren't able to build a homeless shelter, why the air is among the worst in the country, why my sister's family goes to a public library with holes in the roof, why I have to pay to park in front of my house, why my landlord is able to screw me in over with opaque carelessness and impunity, and why virtually everyone I know thinks the government doesn't care about them and they have no voice in it--they're right. The government is too busy caring about and listening to you. This system is not actually available to us.Again--you (you being the citizens) are the problem. You have to take control of your elected officials--I mean it's YOU that vote them into office. And maybe you don't have the money to spread around--but you have the votes. Things go to hell because you don't care enough. On thing the Borgeoise know that the Proletariat hasn't found out yet is that life is a constant struggle to get what you want and get things the way you want them.

Until the Revolution comes and the world is all peaches and cream you have to fight for control of the things you care about.

Rascolnikova

3rd November 2008, 12:22

I guess the stuff I've been reading lately has been a lot more abstruse--Stalin and Trotsky arguing over the difference between Permanent Revolution and Proletarian Revolution. :rolleyes:

Well see, you have to take an interest. You can't expect to just ELECT people and have them do all of the work. YOU have to become involved in the meetings and discussions. The Bourgeois certainly take part in the government's discussions and decisions. How are you going to have a Revolution if you can't get to a City Council meeting? But seriously--you raise a good point, especially about cities--when I lived in NYC I wouldn't go near those kids of meetings, I always figured them as being corrupt. On the other hand where I live and do lost of my business in Florida, I think County Commissions are pretty open and responsive to any citizen's complaint or suggestion.

But you have to show up--

Again--you (you being the citizens) are the problem. You have to take control of your elected officials--I mean it's YOU that vote them into office. And maybe you don't have the money to spread around--but you have the votes. Things go to hell because you don't care enough. On thing the Borgeoise know that the Proletariat hasn't found out yet is that life is a constant struggle to get what you want and get things the way you want them.

Until the Revolution comes and the world is all peaches and cream you have to fight for control of the things you care about.

There are many true things that can be said about me; that I don't care isn't one.

One of the things about not having money is that you also don't have time. You are making it difficult to believe you have any memory of wage-slave existence.

Things go to hell because people who do have money, and time, care about the public good only insofar as it supports their business interests. I do show up; I show up to every god damned fucking thing I possibly can. At this moment my body hurts because I spent two hours last night running back and forth from a car to tape add-ons to campaign signs before the election, in the hopes that we can have slightly less shitty state representatives.

However, my friends who are trying to raise children--especially alone--can't even show up to the amount of stuff I can show up to. And when twenty people from my neighborhood did show up about the institution of a parking permit program that was clearly being put forward under false pretenses, and which we'd never heard of before, we ended up flatly embarrassed by our unfamiliarity with the dense protocols of the meetings, and summarily dismissed.

I am not stupid; I do not deserve to be treated as stupid, especially when approaching what is supposed to be my local government. I think you are severely out of touch with most people's reality.

Rascolnikova

3rd November 2008, 13:29

you have to fight for control of the things you care about.

To some of us this isn't a game or a joke; that's what the revolution is supposed to be all about.

Self-Owner

3rd November 2008, 14:16

Just use truth:

Two-thirds of all corporations don't pay the corporate tax:
http://genxfinance.com/2008/08/20/two-thirds-of-corporations-dont-pay-taxes-nothing-more-than-political-hogwash/

Agricultural subsidization is mostly welfare for the wealthy: http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2007/07/farm_subsidies_for_the_rich_co.html

The federal government alone gives $150 billion each year in the form of subsidies:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=corporate+welfare&btnG=Search

The average net wealth of your Congressman is $21,000,000, and the average net wealth of your Senator is $60,000,000: http://www.pcij.org/stories/2004/congress.html

Our energy bills, which are advised by employees of oil companies, give tax breaks to Big Oil: http://www.earthshare-oregon.org/our-groups/profiles/nwf/energybill

Ten corporations and their subsidiaries control about 80% of all television networks: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE4DF143AF93AA15757C0A9619482 60

Our voting machines are outsourced to private companies, some of which have direct ties to political parties: http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0131-01.htm

Wars profit manufacturers of guns, steel, automobiles, automobiles, body armor, boots, packaged food, tires, and extraction industries that deal with coal, silver, and so on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_profiteering#Commodity_dealers

When we need more money, the Federal Reserve prints bills, which it sometimes gives to banks, and then the banks will loan our money back to us and charge taxpayers interest: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=the+federal+reserve&btnG=Search

Wal-Mart gets close to $2 billion each year in subsidies and tax breaks: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=wal-mart+%2B+subsidized&btnG=Search

Burger King and Mcdonald's farms are almost completely subsidized: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Mcdonald%27s+farm+%2B+subsidized&btnG=Search

98% of all newspapers in a city or town are monopolies, less than 15 corporations control most popular news sources: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=7&issue_area_id=6

The top 1,000 major corporations have 35,000 full-time lobbyists: http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Ralph_Nader_Corporations.htm

Historically for large organizations to exist and utilize economics of scale, the government needs to create corporate charters, subsidies, patents, copyrights, land grants, and tax benefits. So how do they defend capitalism as being free when it relies directly on the government to exist? How come we have to bail out all three of the leading American car manufacturers at risk of losing an entire market?

This is a great post, and I think it applies equally well as a pretty good refutation of people who think that libertarianism is nothing more than a defence of big business.

The only issue I have is that you are, I think, talking at cross purposes with people who claim to be defending 'capitalism.' Normally in my experience, people rarely would stand up for the kind of state capitalism you're talking about here. Most of the time they mean free markets when they say capitalism.

Schrödinger's Cat

4th November 2008, 07:36

Rascolnikova

4th November 2008, 08:16

Self-Owner, I asked this is another thread, but there was no response: do you have any links or studies about your "pure-esque" markets? I'm interested in seeing how far the government gets involved in providing economics of scale.

Yes; I am most curious about this also.

It's funny how the same people who say communism has never worked so often say capitalism has never been tried. . .

Bud Struggle

4th November 2008, 11:47

There are many true things that can be said about me; that I don't care isn't one. Sorry bor being a bit brash. I wasn't talking about YOU in particular. I was talking about how the system works. I also wasn't making judgment calls on how the system works--but if people want things done, those people have to do them. The world is as simple as that.

One of the things about not having money is that you also don't have time. You are making it difficult to believe you have any memory of wage-slave existence. I understand, you are pointiing out to me the way the world works just as I was pointing out the way the world works to you. But, there are LOTS of people that have a little time that can really make a difference. If a community wants something done (or not done) a lot of people donating a little time is more effective than one businessman putting a lot of time into something.

Things go to hell because people who do have money, and time, care about the public good only insofar as it supports their business interests. I do show up; I show up to every god damned fucking thing I possibly can. At this moment my body hurts because I spent two hours last night running back and forth from a car to tape add-ons to campaign signs before the election, in the hopes that we can have slightly less shitty state representatives.Good, and I'm sure you will make a difference.

However, my friends who are trying to raise children--especially alone--can't even show up to the amount of stuff I can show up to. And when twenty people from my neighborhood did show up about the institution of a parking permit program that was clearly being put forward under false pretenses, and which we'd never heard of before, we ended up flatly embarrassed by our unfamiliarity with the dense protocols of the meetings, and summarily dismissed. I understand--there are problems but as Donals Rumsfeld once said: "Democracy isn't tidy." You have to work at things.

I am not stupid; I do not deserve to be treated as stupid, especially when approaching what is supposed to be my local government. I think you are severely out of touch with most people's reality.I know you are not stupid, and I wasn't in the least bit suggesting you were. But you did miss the point of my post--when I said "you" I wasn't talking about "you" in any particular sense--especially "you" Rasco in particular. I wasjust explaining how things work in the United States of America in 2008.

Again, sorry for the confusion.

And:
To some of us this isn't a game or a joke; that's what the revolution is supposed to be all about. I know that--your point is an actual issue with me and the subjuct of much of the yelling at I get from my wife (and children)--I have a bad tendancy to never take things very seriously and I pretty much make a jokes about everything. :(

Rascolnikova

4th November 2008, 12:51

Sorry bor being a bit brash. I wasn't talking about YOU in particular. I was talking about how the system works. I also wasn't making judgment calls on how the system works--but if people want things done, those people have to do them. The world is as simple as that.

I understand, you are pointiing out to me the way the world works just as I was pointing out the way the world works to you. But, there are LOTS of people that have a little time that can really make a difference. If a community wants something done (or not done) a lot of people donating a little time is more effective than one businessman putting a lot of time into something.

Good, and I'm sure you will make a difference.

I understand--there are problems but as Donals Rumsfeld once said: "Democracy isn't tidy." You have to work at things.

I know you are not stupid, and I wasn't in the least bit suggesting you were. But you did miss the point of my post--when I said "you" I wasn't talking about "you" in any particular sense--especially "you" Rasco in particular. I wasjust explaining how things work in the United States of America in 2008.

Again, sorry for the confusion.

And: I know that--your point is an actual issue with me and the subjuct of much of the yelling at I get from my wife (and children)--I have a bad tendancy to never take things very seriously and I pretty much make a jokes about everything. :(

Good for them. :D

I do appreciate you making a point that it wasn't intended to be an attack on me. I hope you will have patience with the following, because it's pissy as hell. . . and also right.

I think you missed the point of my post. I know that you have managed to separate out in your head "me" from "all those other lazy workers,*" but for some reason, I have not.

By making points on "how the system works," you were also making the point that it does work--and I think it's clear I wouldn't be here if I believed that.

I'm aware that I'm unusual, but I've been "working at things" for more than ten years. It's not always been city government, but it's just about always been something. I'm not perfectly unfamiliar with your world; I sat my first nonprofit directorship when I was 19.

From those ten years of community service and involvement, I can't quite reach the conclusion that all those people who sit at home are wrong. Time is very expensive when you're poor, and without extensive organizing, the ratio of time put in to progress made is terrible. You, and. . . well, there's no other way to put it--capitalists in general--genuinely, somehow, manage to believe that economic growth and "development" are more beneficial to people than environmental soundness, equality, sustainability, or social justice. Since the entire order of things has been established in your favor, it's not a small thing to make progress against.

Which leads us to the question--what exactly makes it moral to manipulate the city government to your own advantage over the good of your community? What makes it fair for you to say that this choice you, who claim to be an ethical human being, make, is the fault of the working class?

I know you don't think I'm stupid, but that's far from true of my city council. When you show up with 20 people from an established family neighborhood that's been paying income taxes for 50 years, treating your constituents as if they need remedial reading lessons is not an appropriate response--and it should not go unpunished--but it does. The political scene is awful. As far as I can tell, it's hard--maybe impossible--to even credibly run for office if you're really working class. The woman whose campaign signs I helped with the other night holds virtually no positions I agree with; she is worth my time because the other guy is that much worse, and because I wanted to learn about how campaigns work.

I could list plenty of other examples of how things don't work in the United States of America in 2008. Have I done a lot of work, directly, in local politics? No. Would/will I be much more effective when I have some more experience doing that? I certainly hope so. Does that make the argument "its your fault we're screwing you over, because you aren't stopping us" a remotely good one?

. . .

*or. . . "those workers who just don't give a shit that their lives suck," or. . . something? I know you try not to be this disrespectful, generally, but I really don't understand your position here.

Bud Struggle

4th November 2008, 15:28

Good for them. :D

I do appreciate you making a point that it wasn't intended to be an attack on me. I hope you will have patience with the following, because it's pissy as hell. . . and also right. I really try never to attack people personally. As far as you being "pissy", my whole life has been devoted to calming down pissy women.:lol:

I think you missed the point of my post. I know that you have managed to separate out in your head "me" from "all those other lazy workers,*" but for some reason, I have not. Did I say lazy? Or those that don't give a shit? Nope. I'm not making judgment calls on why people do or don't do things. I'm just saying in many cases it's not being done.

By making points on "how the system works," you were also making the point that it does work--and I think it's clear I wouldn't be here if I believed that. You are twisting my wouds here a bit--I'm not again making a judgment. I'm just stating the FACTS about how things get done or not done on a local level--I only state what I have seen first hand. I said when it comes to the national level--I can't really report on that, because I haven't seen much and what I have seen, I'm not quite sure of what I saw. I'm just trying to be factual. Just the fact's ma'am.

I'm aware that I'm unusual, but I've been "working at things" for more than ten years. It's not always been city government, but it's just about always been something. I'm not perfectly unfamiliar with your world; I sat my first nonprofit directorship when I was 19. great--than you have a pretty good idea about what I'm talking about.

From those ten years of community service and involvement, I can't quite reach the conclusion that all those people who sit at home are wrong. Time is very expensive when you're poor, and without extensive organizing, the ratio of time put in to progress made is terrible. I agree with you there.

You, and. . . well, there's no other way to put it--capitalists in general--genuinely, somehow, manage to believe that economic growth and "development" are more beneficial to people than environmental soundness, equality, sustainability, or social justice. Since the entire order of things has been established in your favor, it's not a small thing to make progress against. First of all--we Capitalists aren't some sort of "block." Some care about the enviornment, admittedly, a lot don't. But we all operate separately from each other. Capitalists don't organize. But things definitely are favorable for us, I'll grant you that--but Progress is the principle on which America was founded. If people want to change that principle, that's fine, but it always is more difficult to change the established order than to "go with the flow."

Which leads us to the question--what exactly makes it moral to manipulate the city government to your own advantage over the good of your community? What makes it fair for you to say that this choice you, who claim to be an ethical human being, make, is the fault of the working class? I wouldn't do that. It's not my interest to screw people over. As I said, all Capitalists aren't alike. I do things in for my business, to be sure--but I don't screw people over to do so.

I know you don't think I'm stupid, but that's far from true of my city council. When you show up with 20 people from an established family neighborhood that's been paying income taxes for 50 years, treating your constituents as if they need remedial reading lessons is not an appropriate response--and it should not go unpunished--but it does. The political scene is awful. As far as I can tell, it's hard--maybe impossible--to even credibly run for office if you're really working class. The woman whose campaign signs I helped with the other night holds virtually no positions I agree with; she is worth my time because the other guy is that much worse, and because I wanted to learn about how campaigns work. A lot of those councils in and out of the city are pretty corrupt, I agree. But such things don't serve business (or at least MOST business) any more than they serve their community.

I could list plenty of other examples of how things don't work in the United States of America in 2008. Have I done a lot of work, directly, in local politics? No. Would/will I be much more effective when I have some more experience doing that? I certainly hope so. Does that make the argument "its your fault we're screwing you over, because you aren't stopping us" a remotely good one? The thing is--it's YOUR city and no one's going to change it but you. But do you really think things are going to change for the better AFTER the Revolution? The same people will be in power. The same good Socialist rulers of the Soviet Union are now the good Capitalist rulers of Russia. If Russia put back the Tsar--those same guys would be the aristocrats. It's ALWAYS the same people.

:)

spice756

5th November 2008, 09:14

This is a great post, and I think it applies equally well as a pretty good refutation of people who think that libertarianism is nothing more than a defence of big business.

I hard to say if they are in defence of big business they just want a free-market no government involved.

The only issue I have is that you are, I think, talking at cross purposes with people who claim to be defending 'capitalism.' Normally in my experience, people rarely would stand up for the kind of state capitalism you're talking about here. Most of the time they mean free markets when they say capitalism.

The people in the US that are defending capitalism do not like this type of capitalism and blame the liberals or socialist for this type of problem.

They are pro-free markets and small goverment.

Just like I said, they CONTROL everything literally, because they own everything. its common sense.

They may own stuff but if the government pass a law saying everyone must get $20 a hour and 10 sick days in year there is nothing you can do.

The government passes a laws and has the most power .It is who the government represents and why.

Plagueround

5th November 2008, 09:47

The thing is--it's YOUR city and no one's going to change it but you. But do you really think things are going to change for the better AFTER the Revolution? The same people will be in power. The same good Socialist rulers of the Soviet Union are now the good Capitalist rulers of Russia. If Russia put back the Tsar--those same guys would be the aristocrats. It's ALWAYS the same people.

I would call you out for adamantly clinging to the soviet model to further your points...but I suppose there is no point in that when so many socialists won't let go of it either.

Bud Struggle

5th November 2008, 12:03

I would call you out for adamantly clinging to the soviet model to further your points...but I suppose there is no point in that when so many socialists won't let go of it either.

:lol:

I could make the same point with American elections. The Democrats get in, the Republicans get in...it's all the same people that are in charge.

Rascolnikova

6th November 2008, 08:25

I really try never to attack people personally. As far as you being "pissy", my whole life has been devoted to calming down pissy women.:lol:

Well. . . that's off to a refreshingly egalitarian start.

Did I say lazy? Or those that don't give a shit? Nope. I'm not making judgment calls on why people do or don't do things. I'm just saying in many cases it's not being done. True. You merely say--or seem to say--that the poor are poor because they aren't doing things they could reasonably be doing to stop being poor. . . which can only leave me to wonder why you think that might be.

First of all--we Capitalists aren't some sort of "block." Some care about the enviornment, admittedly, a lot don't. But we all operate separately from each other. Capitalists don't organize. But things definitely are favorable for us, I'll grant you that--but Progress is the principle on which America was founded. If people want to change that principle, that's fine, but it always is more difficult to change the established order than to "go with the flow."Baby boomers aren't some sort of "block" either, nor do they organize. . . but their shared interests shape society. In the baby boomer's case, it's because there's a lot of them; in the case of capitalists, it's because they have most of the money. . .one of the problems with the invisible hand is that demand comes in units of money, not people.

Yes. . . this idea of "progress" is what the slaveholding white male property owners of early america founded this country on.

I wouldn't do that. It's not my interest to screw people over. As I said, all Capitalists aren't alike. I do things in for my business, to be sure--but I don't screw people over to do so. Can I take that to mean your business is carbon neutral, and uses only renewable energy sources, and that all your workers and their families have access to good health care? Can I take it to mean you do the research to know the measures you vote for so that no one gets voted down don't mess with anyone's neighborhood?

A lot of those councils in and out of the city are pretty corrupt, I agree. But such things don't serve business (or at least MOST business) any more than they serve their community. I think it's functioning just as it was intended to. How does building over parks hurt businesses?

The thing is--it's YOUR city and no one's going to change it but you. But do you really think things are going to change for the better AFTER the Revolution? The same people will be in power. The same good Socialist rulers of the Soviet Union are now the good Capitalist rulers of Russia. If Russia put back the Tsar--those same guys would be the aristocrats. It's ALWAYS the same people.
And that's where you're wrong. To make a dent, I'd have to go at it full time. If I'm going to do that, I might as well try for a system that's actually designed to work in our favor, not one we have to constantly reign in.

If it's always the same people, I will always fight them. All sorts of things have always happened; doesn't change that the only right choice is to try and make them stop.

Bud Struggle

6th November 2008, 13:38

Well. . . that's off to a refreshingly egalitarian start. :)

True. You merely say--or seem to say--that the poor are poor because they aren't doing things they could reasonably be doing to stop being poor. . . which can only leave me to wonder why you think that might be. People do what they decide to do. Some people free time is more important, some people hard work, sume people strive for fame, others monitary success. It's personal choice.

Baby boomers aren't some sort of "block" either, nor do they organize. . . but their shared interests shape society. In the baby boomer's case, it's because there's a lot of them; in the case of capitalists, it's because they have most of the money. . .one of the problems with the invisible hand is that demand comes in units of money, not people. True.

Yes. . . this idea of "progress" is what the slaveholding white male property owners of early america founded this country on. And if there were no progress there would still be slavery. Now we have a descendant of slaves (metaphoric in this particular case) as our President. It works for me.

Can I take that to mean your business is carbon neutral, and uses only renewable energy sources, I don't buy into that whole global warming scam.

and that all your workers and their families have access to good health care? Yes. As a Catholic I'm obliged by my Church to respect the dignity of all my workers.

Can I take it to mean you do the research to know the measures you vote for so that no one gets voted down don't mess with anyone's neighborhood? I'm more of an empty field kind of guy. I don't mess with cities and the like.

I think it's functioning just as it was intended to. How does building over parks hurt businesses? I dunno--I kind of like parks myself.

And that's where you're wrong. To make a dent, I'd have to go at it full time. If I'm going to do that, I might as well try for a system that's actually designed to work in our favor, not one we have to constantly reign in. Actually, it's not a bad system. The commissioners are elected by the people. Meeting are all open and free and anyone could be for or against any proposition. It's just gets a bit funky in actual practice.

If it's always the same people, I will always fight them. All sorts of things have always happened; doesn't change that the only right choice is to try and make them stop. Indeed, fight the system.:star::hammersickle::star3:

Rascolnikova

7th November 2008, 07:47

People do what they decide to do. Some people free time is more important, some people hard work, sume people strive for fame, others monitary success. It's personal choice.

1) And you don't see how I might think this implies that you think people who don't have access to food, housing, healthcare, and education, are in that position due to personal choice?

2) http://difficultjane.blogspot.com/2008/10/freely-choen.html

True.

And if there were no progress there would still be slavery. Now we have a descendant of slaves (metaphoric in this particular case) as our President. It works for me.It does work for you, on all sorts of levels. Sadly, it doesn't work so well for most of the actual descendants of slaves--or of the people who lived on this continent before we came and made it what it is--many of whom are statistically more likely to declare bankruptcy or spend time in jail than graduate high school or college.

I don't buy into that whole global warming scam.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

Yes. As a Catholic I'm obliged by my Church to respect the dignity of all my workers.Good for you.

I'm more of an empty field kind of guy. I don't mess with cities and the like.

I dunno--I kind of like parks myself. In both cases here you have not answered my questions.

Actually, it's not a bad system. The commissioners are elected by the people. Meeting are all open and free and anyone could be for or against any proposition. It's just gets a bit funky in actual practice.Yes. . . God forbid we worry about how things work out in actual practice. Oh, wait--I forgot. It works for you.

Bud Struggle

7th November 2008, 11:47

1) And you don't see how I might think this implies that you think people who don't have access to food, housing, healthcare, and education, are in that position due to personal choice? I think I answered on the other thread.

2) http://difficultjane.blogspot.com/2008/10/freely-choen.html Sheep poo.:)

It does work for you, on all sorts of levels. Sadly, it doesn't work so well for most of the actual descendants of slaves--or of the people who lived on this continent before we came and made it what it is--many of whom are statistically more likely to declare bankruptcy or spend time in jail than graduate high school or college. Oh, I'm a decendant of Russian serfs--much the same as slaves. And it is sad the system doesn't work for everyone. But if you want things to change you just have to get out there and change them. I do, when those things apply to me. We are all equal under the law--every persons vote counts just as much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science I suppose I could pull up websites that say differently. I'm just not a fan.

In both cases here you have not answered my questions. I'm just a citizen--I don't vote for any issues. And as far as the park question goes--on the face of it I don't think getting rid of them does any one any good--but I would have to look at the specifics of the particular situation to give a definitive answer.

Yes. . . God forbid we worry about how things work out in actual practice. Oh, wait--I forgot. It works for you. It does work for everyone--"you just have to want it enough." :)

Rascolnikova

8th November 2008, 07:27

I suppose I could pull up websites that say differently. I'm just not a fan.

Apparently.

ZeroNowhere

8th November 2008, 18:22

I'm talking to my friend about government and business today:eek::eek: Anyways we got talking about how business control the government .But really do not understand this or how this works .

In other ways government is for business not the people.I know conservatives are going say this not true and this is propaganda.

What should I do and what data or sites should I use to dispute the claims? What different ways does business control the government ?

The people in government who where business people or government who have friends who are business people .Okay is this valid statement?

Or should I use the statement the business giving money to government people to pay their capaning on election day or donation doing in power.

I know the conservatives are going say this is propaganda and government are for the people not business .But how do I explain my self or dispute the claims
Firstly, the rich control the media, which has a huge influence on the elections. However, what then prevents a candidate from sucking up to business interests during the elections, then implementing strongly populist tactics, or even some promises that he ran on? Nothing much. So, let's say Obama did it, then what? As Chomsky said, when "popular reform candidates . . . get elected . . . you get [a] capital strike -- investment capital flows out of the country, there's a lowering of investment, and the economy grinds to a halt . . . The reason is quite simple. In our society, real power does not happen to lie in the political system, it lies in the private economy; that's were the decisions are made about what's produced, how much is produced, what's consumed, where investment takes place, who has jobs, who controls the resources, and so on and so forth. And as long as that remains the case, changes inside the political system can make some difference -- I don't want to say it's zero -- but the differences are going to be very slight."
Also, to quote Doug Henwood, "[p]ublic debt is a powerful way of assuring that the state remains safely in capital's hands. The higher a government's debt, the more it must please its bankers. Should bankers grow displeased, they will refuse to roll over old debts or to extend new financing on any but the most punishing terms (if at all). The explosion of [US] federal debt in the 1980s vastly increased the power of creditors to demand austere fiscal and monetary policies to dampen the US economy as it recovered . . . from the 1989-92 slowdown."

White Nationalist

9th November 2008, 21:58

After all, in the US, if you advocate that the government should help the poor you're an un-American socialist; When the government helps out millionaires and multi-billion dollar corporations it's to save the American dream.

lol. Good observation.

spice756

16th November 2008, 09:35

Firstly, the rich control the media, which has a huge influence on the elections. However, what then prevents a candidate from sucking up to business interests during the elections, then implementing strongly populist tactics, or even some promises that he ran on?

What do you mean by implementing strongly populist or tactics?

Nothing much. So, let's say Obama did it, then what? As Chomsky said, when "popular reform candidates . . . get elected . . . you get [a] capital strike -- investment capital flows out of the country, there's a lowering of investment, and the economy grinds to a halt . . .

Thanks to globalization but this was not case before.

The reason is quite simple. In our society, real power does not happen to lie in the political system, it lies in the private economy; that's were the decisions are made about what's produced, how much is produced, what's consumed, where investment takes place, who has jobs, who controls the resources, and so on and so forth.

True but you must understand capitalists seek profit at all cost and when the time comes they cut their pay by 70% than allow them self to burn.In some cases they will even support social programs or social democratic do to fear of a revolution.Its like get tax to hell or have a red party take your stuff.

So yes in way capitalists control the government has you where saying above that is power (decisions are made about what's produced, how much is produced, what's consumed, where investment takes place, who has jobs, who controls the resources, and so on and so forth)

But there is some thing else going on here the government is bowing down to them in the US and going out of their way and I really do not understand why.To the point of giving them money !!! Dam that is control.

And as long as that remains the case, changes inside the political system can make some difference -- I don't want to say it's zero -- but the differences are going to be very slight."

How will social programs really be stop by capitalists and unless you are taxing them like hell.

Also, to quote Doug Henwood, "[p]ublic debt is a powerful way of assuring that the state remains safely in capital's hands. The higher a government's debt, the more it must please its bankers. Should bankers grow displeased, they will refuse to roll over old debts or to extend new financing on any but the most punishing terms (if at all).

You mean the bankers will stop giving money and put people in jail to the debt is payed off.

The explosion of [US] federal debt in the 1980s vastly increased the power of creditors to demand austere fiscal and monetary policies to dampen the US economy as it recovered . . . from the 1989-92 slowdown

I don't really understand here it sound more like blackmail.