Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Mrbsct, Sep 4, 2014.
Your opinion please.
In America btw.
Corporations can't force me to comply with their wishes at the point of a gun.
Corporations must comply with the law or face consequences.
If corporations lie and stonewall in an investigation their officers go to jail.
Corporations don't force me to do business with them.
Technically speaking the government, but since the government is owned by corporations, 'both' seems the most accurate answer.
Corporations because they run the government. They are the ones determining who gets the funding to run. They write their own regulations to get rid of competition. While the government does have more power, the corporate control over government means that it is something of an instrument for them. It takes popular opinion to overrule them, and that's hard to get when you have billions being funneled in opposition. For some reason people are very swayed by ads. I guess it's because they don't bother to do any research whatsoever and just look to who yells loudest.
Let me put this another way for those who don't see what I'm saying:
Who is more powerful, the giant, or the midget who tells him what to do?
They wrote the ACA to do just that. What I find funny is that it's actually a great example of what I'm talking about.
Corporations can't shut down the government but government can certainly destroy any corporation they choose.
Not really, all they have to do is move overseas. What is the government going to do about it? As is nothing. A national company yes you have a point, but good luck taking down anything big like Microsoft, Google, Apple, etc.
Corporations can't shut down the government as an encompassing entity, but they can determine which individuals end up running the government, and what high paying industry jobs said individuals get after they leave power.
That's like asking who's more powerful in a partnership or marriage. It's one of those questions that nothing good can come from asking or answering.
And the truth is government only exists because the people voted for it and businesses only exist because people buy from them... as frightening as it is to admit, neither government nor businesses hold the power. We do.
Both, but corporations derive their special privledges from collusion with government.
Most of the ones that matter don't ever leave government the taste of power is just to sweet. Again why wasn't WAMU to big to fail? Why was microsoft hit with a pretty much fraudulent anti trust lawsuit out of which only two things came one of which didn't matter and the other one of which was the breaking of the .com bubble?
Um how would you like to be shut out of the most lucrative market on the planet? By the way they are doing there best right now to shut down the Corps ability to escape their wrath shoud the government choose to come after them.
What have they done to shut down corporations ability to move overseas? I can't think of a single thing. Hell Burgerking is becoming a Canadian company! Budweiser is now Dutch. It's a global economy, there is nothing you can do. We can just collect taxes raised in this nation and that's it. Apple and many others have proven that by keeping money raised outside the US overseas rather than bring it back in and face taxes. It's to the point that Americans overseas renounce their citizenship to avoid US taxes. It's certainly not for lack of trying that we don't get our tax dollars, but clearly it keeps money away.
Also yes we are a large market, and no company wants to be left out of it, but the US also wants their taxes. Chasing away money is a bad idea and would hurt the government rather than help it. It's the same reason the US and China want to keep a good relationship; it is mutually beneficial and would hurt both nations if things went south.
Corporations. They buy and sell politicians like cattle.
The U.S. Federal Government is more powerful than American corporations, they have the threat of force available. If the feds weren't more powerful, the corporations wouldn't bother to bribe politicians to curry their favor.
It is illegal for Corporations to give move to political candidates or campaigns. Has been for over 70 years.
Corporations have all of the power. They have the money and politicians need money to run for office. They will sell out their ideals, and the American people to please their financial backers.
The choices for the poll is wrong. Corporatism is not corporations and government are equal. It's when the government is controlled by the corporations through money. It's the proper name for crony capitalism. I also call it Whorism, since it involved politicians doing favors for money.
False dichotomy. One hand washes the other. We endure a marriage of big business and big government while the big business media machine convinces you that they are opposing forces, effectively getting the majority to pick sides in a false ideological struggle between big government and big business which proliferates the the paradigm of big government FOR big business.
- - - Updated - - -
It really should be referred to as "monopoly capitalism" or "corporate socialism". Fascism is an apt moniker, too, except people think fascism has to look like Nazi Germany in the 1930s and 40s.
Who makes the rules and regulations, awards government contracts and has the US military apparatus at their disposal? The machine is both big business and big government. Neither is toothless and they work together far more than they work against each other.
* Corporations just before and during elections.
* Government just after elections and during the first year of a mandate.
* t's a fight of powers in the months among the above mentioned periods.
They make those rules and regulations based on the wishes of their financial backers.
I went with the corporatism option. At this point, government and corporate influence are one and the same.
That's missing the point. They still wield more direct power, which is why they garner financial attention. If the government didn't provide the opportunity to be used as a means of marginalizing small market competition, externalizing costs to the taxpayer, and securing access to foreign markets, there would be less interest in corrupting it to be used to such ends. Conversely, if the system weren't so utterly corruptible, the government reach would NEVER have grown to the obese monstrosity that it is today. There are two forces at play, here, and they work together to exploit those under the blanket of their authority.
Separate names with a comma.