I don’t think the average American wants politicians this old, they are being chosen by their political parties as having the highest chance of winning because we have a broken voting system that encourages fewer candidates per party so that they don’t steal votes from each other.
That is why we need ranked choice voting, so that more candidates can run without competing and we could vote for people we actually like instead of voting against candidates we don’t like.
Not to mention the need to level the playing field in terms of campaign financing which currently makes it more likely for more established politicians to have collected funding from private organizations, superpacs, and corporate lobbying.
This means that the politicians who are in the pockets of the capitalist elites are more likely to win and to enact the will of these corporations.
Capitalism is the driving force of almost everything that’s wrong in America. [1]
I agree that bailing out a corporation is not very capitalist, but that is not the primary goal of corporate lobbying. I believe it is mostly about keeping their industry legal, unregulated, low-taxed, etc.
If you were a corporation, becoming a monopoly would be your wet dream. As a company becomes richer and more powerful, it gains more influence over politics. It’s a feedback loop that gives them more and more power until they are monopoly. It’s not the government that drives this, it’s the corporations driving the government.
Totally, privatize the profits, socialize the losses. The American “capitalist” way.
Wait, I almost forget socialize the massive environmental damages, drinking water sources destroyed, harmful chemicals spread everywhere, people harmed, CO2 and other pollutants dumped into the atmosphere, and all the other damaging effects of our business we didn’t pay for.
? Don’t see what that has to do with this. Are you saying because Stalin and the USSR did something stupid to the aral sea in the 1940’s it’s fine for companies in America to cause massive environmental damages, hurt tons of people, and then keep all the profits they made over decades, declare bankruptcy, and pass the buck of the cleanup on to the American tax payers? Or make horribly risky investments, extract tons of bonuses, high executive compensation, and stock sales, then get bailed out by the US government and US taxpayers because their flimsy scheme had come crumbling down?
I wasn’t trying to make an argument for communism or something if that’s what you’re getting at, fuck that genocidal maniac Stalin, just that private companies in America often pass on their losses to the American people while they keep all the profits. Often by hiding the costs in things like co2 emissions that we’ll all collectively have to pay for later. If they want profits that’s fine, but they should be held responsible for the losses too. And if American taxpayer money and public investment helped a company make profits, some of that should be returned to the taxpayers too. We need effective regulations and laws to make sure these thing happen.
It seems obvious that in a capitalist system those with capital will benefit if they use that capital to gain political power. Regulatory capture is just good business, right? It’s the same reason capitalist enterprises will just buy up competition - they don’t want competition, they want profit. It’s a lot easier to win the game if you can cripple your opponents.
Until we make and are are able to enforce stronger laws protecting us little people, corporations will tend to wield power to keep squeezing us, because it’s (unfortunately) perfectly legal (though obviously, at least IMHO, perfectly immoral).
Oligarchic fits, and isn’t mutually exclusive with being a capitalist. IMHO it seems like that’s an inevitable outcome in capitalist economies if safeguards aren’t instituted. Also I certainly don’t think oligarchies are restricted to capitalist economies, either. It just seems like it would be the natural goal of amassing capital: rig the system in your favor.
Also I don’t want you making up definitions, I just assumed you had another one in mind when trying to define what most modern corporations aren’t.
Bill Clinton, Bush the Second and Obama were good ages to be Pres (if nothing else). But the notable thing is that they are all Boomers and were elected by Boomers. Would the current establishment let someone 47 (like Clinton) be selected? Nope, they will hang onto power as long as they can. There’s something about the Boomer mentality that just won’t let them hand over the reigns to the younger generations.
I don’t think we can even blame this just on boomerism though, the average age for candidates didn’t go up a little, it went up a LOT. Obama finished his final term as President just over 6 years ago, and he is only 62 right now. Trump is 77 and Biden is 80 right now, a year out from election day. That’s not “boomers voting for boomers”. Trump is just barely a boomer at all, and Biden is solidly silent generation.
Americans vote nursing home candidates instead of presidential candidates
I don’t think the average American wants politicians this old, they are being chosen by their political parties as having the highest chance of winning because we have a broken voting system that encourages fewer candidates per party so that they don’t steal votes from each other.
That is why we need ranked choice voting, so that more candidates can run without competing and we could vote for people we actually like instead of voting against candidates we don’t like.
Not to mention the need to level the playing field in terms of campaign financing which currently makes it more likely for more established politicians to have collected funding from private organizations, superpacs, and corporate lobbying.
This means that the politicians who are in the pockets of the capitalist elites are more likely to win and to enact the will of these corporations.
Those corpos aren’t capitalist. They want government intervention (to save them when their little investing adventures fail)
Capitalism is the driving force of almost everything that’s wrong in America. [1]
I agree that bailing out a corporation is not very capitalist, but that is not the primary goal of corporate lobbying. I believe it is mostly about keeping their industry legal, unregulated, low-taxed, etc.
Yes, and forming government-mantained monopolies, which kinda goes against capitalist principles
If you were a corporation, becoming a monopoly would be your wet dream. As a company becomes richer and more powerful, it gains more influence over politics. It’s a feedback loop that gives them more and more power until they are monopoly. It’s not the government that drives this, it’s the corporations driving the government.
That’s why the government should have cracked down on them before they bought their whole market instead of helping them become monopolies
Totally, privatize the profits, socialize the losses. The American “capitalist” way.
Wait, I almost forget socialize the massive environmental damages, drinking water sources destroyed, harmful chemicals spread everywhere, people harmed, CO2 and other pollutants dumped into the atmosphere, and all the other damaging effects of our business we didn’t pay for.
Don’t Google who dried up the Aral Sea
? Don’t see what that has to do with this. Are you saying because Stalin and the USSR did something stupid to the aral sea in the 1940’s it’s fine for companies in America to cause massive environmental damages, hurt tons of people, and then keep all the profits they made over decades, declare bankruptcy, and pass the buck of the cleanup on to the American tax payers? Or make horribly risky investments, extract tons of bonuses, high executive compensation, and stock sales, then get bailed out by the US government and US taxpayers because their flimsy scheme had come crumbling down?
I wasn’t trying to make an argument for communism or something if that’s what you’re getting at, fuck that genocidal maniac Stalin, just that private companies in America often pass on their losses to the American people while they keep all the profits. Often by hiding the costs in things like co2 emissions that we’ll all collectively have to pay for later. If they want profits that’s fine, but they should be held responsible for the losses too. And if American taxpayer money and public investment helped a company make profits, some of that should be returned to the taxpayers too. We need effective regulations and laws to make sure these thing happen.
What are they, if not capitalist?
It seems obvious that in a capitalist system those with capital will benefit if they use that capital to gain political power. Regulatory capture is just good business, right? It’s the same reason capitalist enterprises will just buy up competition - they don’t want competition, they want profit. It’s a lot easier to win the game if you can cripple your opponents.
Until we make and are are able to enforce stronger laws protecting us little people, corporations will tend to wield power to keep squeezing us, because it’s (unfortunately) perfectly legal (though obviously, at least IMHO, perfectly immoral).
Oligarchic maybe?
I can also make up a definition and claim communism is when Starbucks
Oligarchic fits, and isn’t mutually exclusive with being a capitalist. IMHO it seems like that’s an inevitable outcome in capitalist economies if safeguards aren’t instituted. Also I certainly don’t think oligarchies are restricted to capitalist economies, either. It just seems like it would be the natural goal of amassing capital: rig the system in your favor.
Also I don’t want you making up definitions, I just assumed you had another one in mind when trying to define what most modern corporations aren’t.
Is oligarchy with a superficial capitalist facade accurate enough to you?
Facade isn’t accurate IMHO. Capitalist Oligarchy is fine though. Maybe a subtle distinction, but I think it’s important.
Government intervention to block competition is against the basis of capitalism, a facade is accurate enough
Interesting stance from someone that thinks socialism is when the government does stuff
When did I say “socialism is when gubmint”?
Bill Clinton, Bush the Second and Obama were good ages to be Pres (if nothing else). But the notable thing is that they are all Boomers and were elected by Boomers. Would the current establishment let someone 47 (like Clinton) be selected? Nope, they will hang onto power as long as they can. There’s something about the Boomer mentality that just won’t let them hand over the reigns to the younger generations.
They spent years ridiculing millennials and still think “millennial” means anyone under 25.
I don’t think we can even blame this just on boomerism though, the average age for candidates didn’t go up a little, it went up a LOT. Obama finished his final term as President just over 6 years ago, and he is only 62 right now. Trump is 77 and Biden is 80 right now, a year out from election day. That’s not “boomers voting for boomers”. Trump is just barely a boomer at all, and Biden is solidly silent generation.