Business As Usual

By mugen shiyo · Sep 11, 2011 · 545 · 6
  1. Politicians say a lot, and mostly the talk about what they are going to do. These days, they talk about standing up to big businesses and getting the economy back on track. Politicians speak as if they are in a position of power, but in reality, they are not.

    Ask a general, ask a king, what is it every ruler needs...Money. A nation needs money. Actually, it needs resources, but since everything is owned by someone else, money is the principal method of getting it. Politicians need money especially. They need it simply to get into office. How many seated officials do we have, and how much money does each one spend running for re-election if they so decide? How much do the challengers spend? How much do all campaigniners spend when running for office? This money comes, mostly, from businesses and industries, and they are not in the habit of giving money away for nothing.

    Politicians are leashed from the start. Government itself is leashed. Government needs money to do anything. Anything. It's not a business capable of raising it's own money. I don't think it could be, legally, but it needs money so it institutes taxes for it's services like a labor union (or the mafia). But this money isn't enough. Nations seem to always need more money than they have, and so they find themselves borrowing most of the time. I could imagine they have a whole division of hecklers designed just to go about asking money from everyone with it. Business, industries, and BANKS. So when a politician talks about going strong against these three, they're basically saying they'll bite the hand that feeds them, and though it sounds very tough and inspiring, any demands they make are going to be more like delicate suggestions. After all, they owe them money and they're likely to ask for more in the future.

    I can understand politics and I can understand the world at the national level if I remember the simply fact that in the end, it's all about money and resources. Actually, so are our lives pretty much. Though we have fun and all, the reason we can have fun is because we give up a quarter of our day working for money so that we can purchase the resources we need. Having fun and everything is cool, but if a person had to chose between not having fun or not having a job, I'm guessing most would go with the former. (Yeah, I know you can have fun and work at the same time, but you are working. You probably wouldn't have much fun if you didn't have a job...unless you're the joyful kind of homeless)

Comments

Sort Comments:

Sort Comments By

  1. Banzai
    This is something I've always wondered about US politics, actually. It's a big country, so I can understand why politicians need to spend a lot of money campaigning, but given that the money by and large comes from big business, and very often controversial industries, how can the politicians claim to be independent of their donors, and serving the people? Joe Public cannot donate the kind of sums that (say) a tobacco company can. Are there spending/donation limits on US politicians?
    Banzai, Sep 11, 2011
  2. Cain
    Less than a year ago there was a lot of noise in the UK about lobbyists, and how much influence they were having on our politicians (this was coming from the expenses fiasco, and the unseen perks lobbyists were giving politicians). For a moment it looked like we'd actually step off the path that the US has so disasterously taken. Then unfortunately it disappeared from the news, and it looks like big industry will continue to get their money's worth in the UK. So following the US's footsteps we'll become a corpocracy too. The influence that lobbyists have is insidious, and compared to the banker's naked greed it goes relatively unchecked. In my opinion it's the biggest threat to democracy, yet exists right there in the heart of our goverments. If government is about money and resources (not a bad assessment), then it's the influence of those that sell those resources who will damage our society the most.
    Cain, Sep 11, 2011
  3. Banzai
    Adding to your UK angle, there was an article I read in today's Observer that a large sub-prime lender has donated £100,000 to the Tories, a couple of days after the Tories (and the Lib Dems) voted down a bill to tighten regulation.
    Banzai, Sep 11, 2011
  4. mugen shiyo
    @ Cain, yeah, I was wondering the nature of these companies also. These days, companies and banks are massive entities. Multi-nationals they call them, but I think another term for them is non-national. While they may have begun in one country they become increasingly less barred by that home country. A multinational country begins to function as an group that can pursue its own interest independent of nations or governments. Actually, the nations come to be dependent on them (too big to fail). It;s like watching you refrigerator or tv suddenly gain a life of its own and walk away. Because they are so big and so massive, their money settles in major countries all over the world and they are able to effect world decisions to their benefit. Since their money is so entangled in world financial stability, they can never be simply removed and nations would find themselves forced to hold them up. What happens when these huge businesses decide to partner up for a common goal? They don't need to do it overtly, but there decisions and demands can parallel one another and suddenly the worlds top mega-corporations have a majority hold over the decision making of the world's most powerful governments. How probable is that, I'm not sure, but I hardly think it unlikely to happen.
    mugen shiyo, Sep 11, 2011
  5. Cain
    The antitrust laws are pretty good at stopping them ganging up together (or merging up together really), but since their goals are roughly similar that's not always a protection against the manipulation of governments. Sometimes companies like google are run by people with good intentions, but it never pans out. I think it's in the nature of a company that the larger it gets, the more its ethical conscience gets diluted - and like you say, once it's massively multinational then there's very little individual responsibility.

    Cool blog post - got me going! :D
    Cain, Sep 11, 2011
  6. mugen shiyo
    Lol. Thanks :)

    I agree and I always thought that. No matter what system you use- communism, capitalism- or what system of government- feudalism, democracy- with time, as it grows more in influence and ability, it becomes subject to corruption even though it may have started with the best of intentions.
    mugen shiyo, Sep 12, 2011
To make a comment simply sign up and become a member!
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Accept Learn More...
    Dismiss Notice