Comment by rootlocus

Comment by rootlocus 9 hours ago

2 replies

I fail to see the point you're trying to make or the argumentative process by which you're trying to make it.

Consider this: the current administration has received gifts from private corporations in return for more lenient tariffs. Or consider the amount of law projects passed through congress directly from large corporations with their logo still on the paper. And this is just the blatant tip of the iceberg the current administration is brazen enough to show publicly.

> absolutely baffling to you and which probably makes a hundred obvious counter-arguments pop up in your head.

I can probably find a hundred obvious examples of conflict of interests, quid-pro-quos, or otherwise pro-corporation anti-consumer for any administration in history. But in the end, the proof is in the pudding. The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, while the government is issuing gold cards with the president's face on them for multi-millionaires to bring their business.

I'd be glad to hear a few of those hundred obvious counter-arguments.

jimmydorry 8 hours ago

I don't particularly subscribe to any ideology that puts companies above people, but it isn't hard to see things from GP's point of view. Before shooting the messenger, it is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

>Consider this: the current administration has received gifts from private corporations in return for more lenient tariffs

Who better understands where capital restrictions should be applied: this current administration (aka. Trump) or the businesses that grew large enough to buy a seat at the table or can afford to steer policy via "gifts"?

>Or consider the amount of law projects passed through congress directly from large corporations with their logo still on the paper.

Is a person sitting in congress fully cognizant of what is happening in all facets of the economy and have an understanding of what needs to be implemented today to pave the way for the next 10 years and beyond? Why would we not seek input from the industries requiring regulation?

>The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer

Yet this is a golden age by every measure. Zoom out on your timescale and there has never been a more prosperous and peaceful time to be alive. Quality of life has tremendously improved and the possibility of striking out on your own and making it big has never been more attainable. Yes, there will always be people sitting at the top with massive power and wealth, but the average person isn't doing too bad.

  • rootlocus 7 hours ago

    > Who better understands where capital restrictions should be applied

    Should be applied for what purpose? What's the purpose of the government and what's the purpose of a corporation? When the latter is strongly influencing the former, why is it difficult to entertain the idea that their purpose and interests align?

    > Why would we not seek input from the industries requiring regulation?

    There's a difference between seeking and weighing input, and simply passing along legislature proposals without even looking at it. This is a strawman.

    > Yet this is a golden age by every measure.

    This isn't guaranteed to improve or even remain forever. And it really depends where you look. Plenty of war, misery and suffering to go around. And even in safe countries the lack of education, healthcare, financial stability is causing enough stress that people start favoring authoritarian options. That's not a great sign for the future. Just because most of us are doing better than our ancestors, doesn't mean we're going in the right direction or that we're doing the best we can. No progress is achieved by being content with the status quo, and the present is pretty miserable for a lot of people. Should we wait until a terrible war wipes out half the planet before we consider maybe changing things?

    But I think that's beside the point. The argument being discussed is whether corporate entities parabolically "are" the government.