This has nothing to do with the size of the government. "You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours" happens on the state and local level, as well.
People who occupy positions of power should be subject to stricter laws than others. This should be particularly true of people who wield power at the federal level - the laws concerning their conduct should be more strict, and the punishments for violating those laws should be severe. If you can't use your power responsibly, then you should be prosecuted as well as barred from ever holding a position of power again. It makes sense, because individuals who have been given greater power than the average person have a great deal more to gain from those positions, and can cause a great deal more trouble. But what politician would ever vote for this?
Not the same thing at all. The EPA is there to regulate ExxonMobil. They dont regulate the Sierra Club. The EPA has zero ability to do anything to the Sierra Club so its not really a conflict of interest. The issue is that this is cronyism. The same person who approved a merger at a company then immediately gets a big multi-million dollar job right afterwards. It's like those high ranking members of the DoD who give out huge contracts to companies like Lockheed and then right after retiring get nice fat lobbying gigs as a reward for their service to Lockheed (as opposed to their actual job description which is serving the people) So no, people like this should be criticized non-stop. This cronyism has long dominated defense spending and now its seeped into other parts of government.
when someone mentions "size" of government, they don't mean the size of the size of the population/area they reign over. "size" means how much of society does the government control. If a government wants to regulate markets then of course companies are going to lobby to make sure the regulations benefit them. This happens at the federal, state, and local level because "size" has nothing to do with population or area. Liberals like the original poster complain about government corruption, but there will always be lobbyists and government corruption as long as you have large amounts of market regulation. You want **** like this to end, then stop supporting bills consisting of 2000 pages of regulation (Obamacare).
In other countries, they assassinate, humiliate, or set fire to the homes of people who do that. When you've got nothing left to lose...
LMAO off at Tallanvor's drivel... It's amazing that the DoJ isn't as we speak executing a search warrant on her offices, her home and of the corporate headquarters of Comcast-NBC. More to the point, there are such simple ways to fix this, and corporations have provided the blueprint - simply forbid folks working in these positions from then working for the related industry for x years after their tenure. Corporations have similar clauses all the time (non-competes). Obviously, the real solution is outlawing paid lobbying, but good ****ing luck with that in our capitalist dungeon.
That's odd. I thought the size of government meant the size of government, from the local city councilman who quietly steers a contract to a political/business associate, to the admiral that pushes the ship building contract favoring a corporation who's promised him a lucrative job after he retires, often for a warship/weapons system design to counter an enemy/threat that no longer exists, if it ever did. What on earth does national health insurance have to do with the topic?
I think an edit must be made: Would you disagree with this? I'm saying that regardless of the 'size' of market regulation, companies would always be trying to circumvent them. I want to know if you agree or disagree with this. Now, how would you propose to be able to prevent monopolistic and consumer-exploiting moves by big corporations without large amounts of market regulation?
They wouldn't. They haven't learned the lessons of the past. They haven't learned what horrors were created by lack of regulation in this nation's history, and deny the part lack of regulation played in the recent financial crisis.
What I don't quite understand is how a naive, young, inexperienced 18 year old can perceive the problems of their argument and ask them questions, and somehow they cannot do it themselves?
I'm guessing Tanallover was out sick the week they went over lessons of The Robber Barons in High School History. (Or maybe they haven't gotten there yet)
Yes, it is proportional. The more regulation you have the more ways politicians can screw people. And yes, some market regulation is needed, but very few instances call for it (EPA would be one example). I don't believe such things exist. 'consumer-exploiting moves'? The only way a government can force me to do anything is if it is sanctioned by the government, so what are you referring to?
So I guess in this instance, you would be perfectly fine if a single news corporation decided to fomarlise proceedings and controlled almost all aspects of media (television, radio, internet news sites)? Would government regulation be called for then? I'm thinking of things like Apple's pages of pages of iTunes agreements, Facebook's agreement that any photo you put on FB can be used by them, things like that, that exploit consumers inattention and our bad habits and try and profit off that. And I don't quite understand your last statement. 'The only way a govt can force me to do anything is if it is sanctioned by the govt.' What does that mean?
And then read about how major meatpacking plants took advantage of the ensuing public outcry, got the first food safety laws written in their favor, and against small butchers, and used the response to the The Jungle to basically create the beginnings of the corporate food culture that we know today (for better or worse). To the OP, I'm all for exposing government/business cronyism, but this seems like really minor example, with little effect to most people. He approved the sale of GE's propaganda arm to a media company. That seems like a no brainer. If we reign the FCC in, and get it back to just regulating what part of the dial radio stations and TV broadcasts on, all of that big salary would go to waste. I have a quote, and I think it's original, but I may have heard it somewhere: "The only way to get rid of corruption in high places is to get rid of the high places."
Capitalist Corporations have no responsibility to anyone except to make as much money as possible for their owners. Purposeful deceit, dubious advertising, inventing needs, ratcheting up peer pressure, using legal intimidation, emitting pollution, cornering markets, diverting attention, creating public sentiment, coercing public officials, lobbying for favorable laws, intimidating so called independent ratings organizations, cutting wages and benefits, exploiting over seas labor, fomenting revolutions, using cash reserves to quash better technologies, creating monopolies ... are all acceptable business strategies. It is the duty of our Government as the representative of the collective greater good to protect us. If you can't trust it, then you've got a bad government. And it's probably because business has corrupted it. Or the power does not reflect the will of the people governed.
Capitalism in America, example number 32,745. The above microcosm is, quite literally, the history of our country...over and over...and over again. All major examples start as minor examples. And I was really focused more on the brazen nature of this deceit instead of practical implications. That being said, if you think continued conglomeration of media in the US is a "minor" issue, you're nuts. I find it interesting that you, like Tallanvor and Commodore are blaming the FCC, as opposed to the giant corporations funding the lobbying machine that makes this cronyism work. I guess the joe-the-moron propaganda is more effective than I thought, or perhaps that funky elephant hat of yours is some sort of tin-foil protection against the populist and/or rational point of view...
How could that be possible without force? All legal uses of force are sanctioned by the government. Therefore, the scenario you mention above is not possible without government intervention. Nobody forces you to sign those agreements. If you don't like them then don't use those products. I and millions others don't. typo. meant to say the only way a company can make do anything is if it sanctioned by a government.
i love this line of reasoning. "I don't like it when America sends drones to kill people." "THEN MOVE TO YEMEN." "I don't like it when I buy a lemon car." "THEN DON'T BUY CARS."
