Take The Money Out Of Politics. We Are The 99%. We are Too Big To Fail

[Oxymoron]

Democracy is an illusion, a fact which many people are now realising. Politicians of both parties are controlled by the corporations.

Corporations have one motivation, to make as much money for themselves as they possibly can.

Does that sound like good governance to you?


​

 

[Joe]

Democracy is an illusion, a fact which many people are now realising. Politicians of both parties are controlled by the corporations.

Corporations have one motivation, to make as much money for themselves as they possibly can.

Does that sound like good governance to you?


​

Take the Lawyers out of politics . Its the culuision as we see at the Bilderberg between Government and Mega corporations . Something that was considered a conspiracy years ago ? Its funny a video from State Run media MSNBC ?

MSNBC and msnbc.com were founded in 1996 as partnerships of Microsoft and General Electric's NBC unit

 

[George B]

Sorry money is politics and always has been . . . greed for power and money is the whole thing . . . politics is the public manifistation of this process . . . however, most of the real process is hidden from public exposure . . .

 

[George B]

Contract law is the tool used to remove as much as possible the personal liability from those who run a corporation and to protect them from the needs of those harmed by corporate activities . . . so the corporate elite can take risks and increase their wealth and become immune as possible from interference by the public . . . the same principle is found in governments . . . they are for the most part immune from prosecution for stupidity, greed, and many criminal activities . . . while the small guy gets prosecuted for the slightest infraction . . . the big crooks are therefore rewarded and the small time crook is made an example for being too small and unprotected by corporate or governmental cover . . .

 

[HappyMonday]

Corporations have one motivation, to make as much money for themselves as they possibly can.

Just for themselves, or for their shareholders too?

 

[Critical Thinker]

Overturning the citizens united ruling would be a good first step, corporations are not people, they have no concerns other than their profits. No concerns for future generations, or what is good for the country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission

"An ABC–Washington Post poll conducted February 4–8, 2010, showed that 80% of those surveyed opposed (and 65% strongly opposed) the Citizens United ruling, which the poll described as saying "corporations and unions can spend as much money as they want to help political candidates win elections". Additionally, 72% supported "an effort by Congress to reinstate limits on corporate and union spending on election campaigns". The poll showed large majority support from Democrats, Republicans and independents."

 

[Oxymoron]

Just for themselves, or for their shareholders too?

For them and the shareholders although most big corporations are buying back their own shares now, (with Fed money), thereby limiting as much as possible the shareholders.

It is a question of 'privatised profits' and 'socialised losses', i.e. when they are making profits from huge risks, it is for them; but when those huge risks don't pan out it is '"bail us out with public money or the world economy will collapse", and don't forget we still want our billions in bonus' or we won't fix the problems we created.

Obviously this still impacts on the economy and the 99% are held to blame for their own predicament; i.e. starving and out on the streets.

 

[HappyMonday]

For them and the shareholders although most big corporations are buying back their own shares now, (with Fed money), thereby limiting as much as possible the shareholders.

It is a question of 'privatised profits' and 'socialised losses', i.e. when they are making profits from huge risks, it is for them; but when those huge risks don't pan out it is '"bail us out with public money or the world economy will collapse", and don't forget we still want our billions in bonus' or we won't fix the problems we created.

Obviously this still impacts on the economy and the 99% are held to blame for their own predicament; i.e. starving and out on the streets.

Don't disagree with your summation here. Can't watch the vid right now, but the reason I asked the question is because the Co-Operative here in the UK is the first thing that sprang to mind when I read your OP -

http://www.co-operative.coop/corporate/aboutus/The-Co-operative-Group-Values-and-Principles/

I seem to recall you're in the UK too? If so, you'll know what I'm referring to.

Point is, there is a successful corporation which is the sum of it's workers wishes to a greater extent, though you may not define it as such. It's not a megacorp after all.

It's easy to oversimplify, which I think...

"Corporations have one motivation, to make as much money for themselves as they possibly can,"

...from your OP does.

 

[Cairenn]

Most companies are not using 'bail out money' to buy stock. In fact only a very few companies were 'bailed out'.

 

[Oxymoron]

Don't disagree with your summation here. Can't watch the vid right now, but the reason I asked the question is because the Co-Operative here in the UK is the first thing that sprang to mind when I read your OP -

http://www.co-operative.coop/corporate/aboutus/The-Co-operative-Group-Values-and-Principles/

I seem to recall you're in the UK too? If so, you'll know what I'm referring to.

Point is, there is a successful corporation which is the sum of it's workers wishes to a greater extent, though you may not define it as such. It's not a megacorp after all.

It's easy to oversimplify, which I think...

"Corporations have one motivation, to make as much money for themselves as they possibly can,"

...from your OP does.

Yes, the Co op is not your usual corporation though is it. I recall it when it used to give out stamps. It started of as a cooperative and has pretty much stuck to it's roots. There are a number of similar schemes, (much smaller), where people have opened up community shops which they own and to which they devote time and effort into running. I recall seeing a documentary on one about a year ago, think it was on the BBC.

I am a great fan of entrepreneurialism and capitalism but when companies become so large that they rival sovereign states, there is a decided conflict of interest. Competition is key but if you wind up with cartels, (as appears the case in the fuel industry), or corporations able to dominate the markets, we are all in big trouble.

I think Critical Thinker's post was interesting and seems highly valid.

Something definitely needs to change IMO.

 

[Cairenn]

Most of the worlds oil reserves are NOT owned by any of the big oil companies, they are owned by the state owned companies. To say that that 'big oil' controls oil is a misstatement.

One of the things that is pushing fuel prices up, on the world market, is the fact that many of the state owned companies sell fuel to their citizens at a fraction of it's cost, in turn they try to make that up with what they sell in the open market. Meanwhile they are not investing in research, exploration or even maintenance and their production is going down, not up. It is those oil companies that so many hate that are doing the research, and exploration.

 

[Mick West]

Just for themselves, or for their shareholders too?

Generally this amounts to the same thing. However the reasons executives try to make more money for the shareholder is ultimately so they make more money themselves. Most executives get the majority of their income in stock, and so it is in their interest to drive up the value of that stock.

This leads to a certain short-sightedness on the part of some executives, as they focus on events that will maximize their own short term profits, and which is setting the company up to fail in the long run.

Of course, ideally the market forces and various forms of oversight would prevent this. But obviously it has not happened.

To the topic of money in politics, we quite often talk about a company as an individual with an agenda (BP wants to ...), but you have to think about how, as Romney said, "corporations are people too" - meaning they are comprised of people. The boards and the executives are the people making the decisions, and they are not making them for the good of the company (although they have to frame it as if that is what they are doing), they are generally making decisions (or pushing decision) that benefit them as individuals.

 

[Cairenn]

I have often thought that the current demand that corporations make larger profits every year is also driven by the fact that so many folks have IRA money invested in stocks. Now when a company makes smaller profits, many folks see a reduction in their income. The demand is then for higher and higher revenues.

Sometimes a company needs to invest or spend money that will provide more profits in years to come, it is harder today for a company to do that. I wonder if that is why we see more companies going private.

 

[AluminumTheory]

Generally this amounts to the same thing. However the reasons executives try to make more money for the shareholder is ultimately so they make more money themselves. Most executives get the majority of their income in stock, and so it is in their interest to drive up the value of that stock.

This leads to a certain short-sightedness on the part of some executives, as they focus on events that will maximize their own short term profits, and which is setting the company up to fail in the long run.

Of course, ideally the market forces and various forms of oversight would prevent this. But obviously it has not happened.

To the topic of money in politics, we quite often talk about a company as an individual with an agenda (BP wants to ...), but you have to think about how, as Romney said, "corporations are people too" - meaning they are comprised of people. The boards and the executives are the people making the decisions, and they are not making them for the good of the company (although they have to frame it as if that is what they are doing), they are generally making decisions (or pushing decision) that benefit them as individuals.

I feel like the human race in general is very short sighted. I feel that most people in the corporate world would gladly steer in the direction of an iceberg for the sake of short term gains so long as someone else is at the helm when the ship sinks.

Society often sows the seeds of it's own destruction.
People are only concerned with the present, they don't think about tomorrow, and they barely remember yesterday.

 

[David Fraser]

I feel like the human race in general is very short sighted. I feel that most people in the corporate world would gladly steer in the direction of an iceberg for the sake of short term gains so long as someone else is at the helm when the ship sinks.

Society often sows the seeds of it's own destruction.
People are only concerned with the present, they don't think about tomorrow, and they barely remember yesterday.

I feel the opposite. I think corporate types are in it for the long term. Once you earn a certain amount money is irrelevant and the goal is power or legacy.

 

[Oxymoron]

I feel the opposite. I think corporate types are in it for the long term. Once you earn a certain amount money is irrelevant and the goal is power or legacy.

Yes there is only so much money anyone can need, unless it is power that is sought and as you say a legacy or dynasty. They plan far into the future IMO but they can and do make mistakes as well.

 

[Mick West]

I've combined my thoughts on this topic with the more general theme of debunking:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/1784-Using-Campaign-Finance-Reform-to-Debunk-Conspiracy-Theories